Wikipedia talk:Indentation

message: I just changed the formatting quite a bit; I haven't had time yet, but would like to clean up a few things.
#The  tags should be replaced by a template (either one we have or one we can make as a subpage for this page).
#There needs to be timestamps on each example comment (as in the original [[User:BigNate37/Indentation guide]) so folks can be certain they understand which comments were made when, when they analyze the examples.
#The formatting of the numbering of the list should use the automated ordered list markup (the hash marks, "#"). Just need to find a way to do it and I think the template vs.  matter may make it easier.
I'm happy to make these changes as time permits. Specifically for item 3, something along the lines of the indentation hack for WP:CSD#G12 may be appropriate. BigNate37(T) 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did #1 and #2, but #3 seems to break the boxes, whether using  tags or templates. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 03:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed changes 

message: I've reverted the change to the project page that declared this to be a guideline.  There has been way too little discussion to date.  Moreover, (a) this page is not particularly long, which argues that expanding Wikipedia:Talk page might be a viable alternative; (b) there has been no mention to date of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; and (c) this is missing a "See also" section that makes it easy for other users to evaluate whether this proposed guideline actually fills a critical need or not.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 00:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add whatever you think should be there--Pheonix15 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As for merging it, I don't think that should be done. It would make the formatting section of the page way to prominent. Links are Okay though--Pheonix15 17:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed the tag to show this as a proposed guideline to foster the needed discussion. I think this is fine as a stand-alone guideline because it applies to many different forums, including talk pages and deletion discussions, and consistency across these forums is desirable. The only change I would suggest is to use gender-neutral pronouns in the examples per Quest for gender-neutral pronouns. Dhaluza 12:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea. I'm busy now with MEDCAB. could you change them?--Phoenix 15 20:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I replaced them with the names of the players in the Who's on first? sketch. Dhaluza 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit premature 

message: This is senssible enough and I feel it should be a guideline as Wikipedia:talk page does not give enough detail--Phoenix 15 11:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this essay gain guideline status? 

message: I think that this page should talk about outdents as well. warrior4321 21:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdentin 

message: Anyone have any thoughts / opinions on  - created as a less visual alternative to the line format?  Thanks  7  04:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added it to the example at the bottom of this essay, but if anyone feels it is inappropriate please feel free to remove.  7  07:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe a similar template was previously removed on the ground that templates shouldn't be forked. I'd tend to agree with that - I think we should rather modify the current template and add parameters to it to make it support different formats (simple arrow, long lines, etc.). Laurent (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point - would everyone be comfortable if I modified the existing outdent template to show this similar " (←)  " format if no parameters (e.g. zero colons) were passed to it?    7  04:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed that there is already a default length used when zero colons are provided.  How about if  shows the small arrow... although we're starting to get a bit unix-y.   7  04:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds like the best solution. We certainly shouldn't be re-forking this after the effort it took to consolidate the various outdent templates in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdent2 

message: I feel stupid asking this, but how do I indent? Vampyrecat (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just put a colon (:) in front.  Angrysockhop (and a happy new year) 07:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One colon at the beginning of the paragraph indents a small amount; two colons indent a bit more; three colons even more etc.  This is illustrated at WP:Talk page formatting.  Dolphin51 (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, this small bit should be added to this article? I can see it would make more easier for editors who have to come here to learn how to indent. warrior4321 12:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed! I've added it now, as the first line under 'See also'. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow I just read the discussion page... wish I had earlier. An example is shown on the instruction page for outdenting, could one be added to the indenting instructions? Just for someone like me who couldn't realize the white box showing the shortcut was telling me instructions (I thought it was a white box I was to find and click on, when on the edit page.) Silly me. Edit suggestion: Indent examples: One colon :before the first word for one indent. Two ::for two. Three :::for three - etc. note: Your indenting will not appear till you post.--12.189.21.162 (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Revision to 'note' note: Your indenting effects will not appear till you 'review' or 'post'.--Gregory Goble (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I indent? 

message: Should the addition to this essay documented in the preceding section be completed?  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify for any editors who didn't follow those links and whose sarcasm-detector is miscalibrated: the RFC and straw poll were started by Ohiostandard. Speaking of Dark Agendas... Homunq (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree with Chris above, the traditional indentation style makes it very clear what comments are being responded to, regardless of how many contributors to the discussion. The proposed style might be able to cope with three or, at a pinch, four contributors if the discussion is one that is well structured, all contributors understand the topic and each other, remain civil and discuss things in a logical order. As soon as just one of these is missing (and how many discussions on Wikipedia have you seen where all the above are true?) then it will become a complete mess. If it is a discussion that requires closing (e.g a deletion debate) then it will be very nearly impossible for the closer to make head nor tail of it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think that those conditions are as rare as you imply; I've certainly seen them apply more than a few times, though of course not always. I'd be fine if it were explicitly said that this style works best when those conditions were in place. Homunq (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you don't much frequent venues like WP:AN/I and WP:AFD then? Take a look and see how well you think it would under those conditions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: No one does this "I own this indentation level and will stay at it" stuff, so they're not magically going to start doing it.  This is about as pointless as trying to introduce new pronouns like "zie" and "hir". — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  01:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: On a proposed addition 

message: * Support as proposer. Homunq (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify for any editors who didn't follow those links and whose sarcasm-detector is miscalibrated: the RFC and straw poll were started by Ohiostandard. Speaking of Dark Agendas... Homunq (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief comments 

message: This isn't a productive change. In any discussion involving more than two parties, the proposed style will lead to a total train wreck. "Between a limited number of parties" is unworkable as one should expect—nay, invite—additional parties to join a conversation wherever possible. Choice for the sake of choice is not helpful and it is not clear what problem this solves at all. For what it's worth, in my experience it is very uncommon for established editors to use the staggered style suggested and they frequently end up getting reprimanded for it precisely because it results in problems as soon as a new party joins the discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Chris above, the traditional indentation style makes it very clear what comments are being responded to, regardless of how many contributors to the discussion. The proposed style might be able to cope with three or, at a pinch, four contributors if the discussion is one that is well structured, all contributors understand the topic and each other, remain civil and discuss things in a logical order. As soon as just one of these is missing (and how many discussions on Wikipedia have you seen where all the above are true?) then it will become a complete mess. If it is a discussion that requires closing (e.g a deletion debate) then it will be very nearly impossible for the closer to make head nor tail of it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think that those conditions are as rare as you imply; I've certainly seen them apply more than a few times, though of course not always. I'd be fine if it were explicitly said that this style works best when those conditions were in place. Homunq (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you don't much frequent venues like WP:AN/I and WP:AFD then? Take a look and see how well you think it would under those conditions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: No one does this "I own this indentation level and will stay at it" stuff, so they're not magically going to start doing it.  This is about as pointless as trying to introduce new pronouns like "zie" and "hir". — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib.  01:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threaded discussion 

message: I see RfC bot has removed the RfC heading that has been above for the last month. It's not my place to state a conclusion, since I was a party to initiating the RfC in the first place, but I'll ask at the admin noticeboard for someone to do so. --OhioStandard (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: Shouldn’t this page feature colons more prominently? I mean, that’s how indentation is done here, so shouldn’t this page show how to do it? I’m thinking something like:
2. If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level:
—Frungi (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please! I had to do ctrl+F search for colons to find this bit Frances Soong (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colons 

message: People watching this page might be interested in testing the result of phab:T92400. As far as I can see, the new Flow indentation model shows comments in the wrong order and level of indentation. If others have different opinions on this, please share your thoughts on mw:Talk:Flow. Helder 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New indentation model in Flow 

message: Please see: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Accessibility versus convenience in indentation — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  13:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility versus convenience in indentation (RfC at VPPOL) 

message: Is there a way to indent text so that text that is wrapped to a new line gets an extra indentation? Squandermania (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrapped text extra indentation 

message: Some markup breaks if you attempt to indent it with leading colons, e.g., . In particular, the text
{{cite report
 |     title = Quarterly Status Report - Report #1 
 |        id = AD-A206 308
 |      date = 15 March 1989
 |       url = https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206308.pdf
 |      work = Advance Computing Systems: An Advanced Reasoning-Based Paradigm for Ada Trusted Systems and its Application to MACH
 |       via = https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr
 | publisher = TRW - Federal Systems Group - Systems Division
 }}
renders properly as 

but the text
:::{{cite report
 |     title = Quarterly Status Report - Report #1 
 |        id = AD-A206 308
 |      date = 15 March 1989
 |       url = https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206308.pdf
 |      work = Advance Computing Systems: An Advanced Reasoning-Based Paradigm for Ada Trusted Systems and its Application to MACH
 |       via = https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr
 | publisher = TRW - Federal Systems Group - Systems Division
 }}
renders as
:::
Guidance on what to avoid and what workarounds to use would be helpful. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interference between indentation and other markup? 

message: Wikipedia discussion pages always felt to me like some awkward band-aid solution which is not fit for purpose. The fact that this guideline even exist is quite ridiculous. This "problem" must be solved in software. Instead of wasting our time and effort on discussing this, we better petition wikipedia.org to add some reddid-style facility. Unfortunately I don't even know what the process would be for that. If there is such request already, I would certainly vote for it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shcha (talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See what I mean... You need to add a f..ng signature. And there is even a special bot which will add it for you if forgot. Band-aid on top of band-aid. FFS, sheer idiocy. Shcha (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we question the whole approach which makes such elaborate guidelines necessary? 

message: The redirect Wikipedia:← has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Nickps (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Wikipedia:←]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]