Talk:Round the Horne

message: Drfrench, what the hell are you doing with the continued edit warring and not bothering to discuss things on the talk page? Your last edit summary of "fix formatting" fools no-one. It is a revert, so please be honest in your summaries in future, even if you are trying to avoid accusations of breaching the blue line of WP:3RR. You've been asked several times to DISCUSS rather than edit war, and I can't understand why you are not able to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: DrFrench, your version does not seem to be an improvement.  Please explain what you are trying to do, and why you think it is better than the previous version.  If you continue to WP:EDIT WAR, you may be blocked from editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  More edit warring 

message: Taking this to the talk page as requested.  Can you explain why MOS:BOLDREDIRECT does not apply here?  The redirects in question are , , and .  Tevildo (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You have misread the MoS guideline. The redirects are not from this page, but to it. Bolding here is unhelpful and pointless. Tim riley talk 21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be little point bolding an outgoing redirect link.  See also MOS:B - "This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not" [emphasis added].  The bolding is consistent with the MOS.  If there's a reason that the MOS doesn't apply here, please share it.  Otherwise, the MOS prescribes that the terms should be bolded. Tevildo (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: One of us misunderstands the MoS guideline about what is commonly (not compulsorily) bolded. I'd be glad of advice from my co-author of the FA text, SchroCat. Tim riley talk 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bother with the redirects? They seem rather pointless to me, given the dozens (hundreds?) of character names used. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's right. And on top of that, for every one editor who puts Dobbiroids into the search engine there will surely be many more who would open the main article and wonder why on earth Dobbiroids is in unexplained bold type. As the MoS does not make it mandatory to embolden terms to which a redirect points I think we should refrain from doing so here, as simply unhelpful to our readers. Tim riley talk 22:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this discussion can stand as the reason for non-compliance, I won't labour the point.  A similar argument could be made for restoring the capitals to Director-General, but, as they say, I don't have a dog in that fight. Perhaps adding a comment to the text to deter any future editors who want to follow the MOS might be an idea. Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Not at all!  We followed the process and we reached a resolution without resorting to personal abuse, which, I agree, is far too common these days.  I'm still right, of course. 😺 Tevildo (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding