Wikipedia talk:Avoid thread mode

message: I agree with this essay. The sort of thing you're speaking out against here goes hand in hand with other unencyclopedic styles, as set out in WP:BETTER, commonly combined with advertising, unwikified articles, uncategorised articles, unreferenced articles, non-notable articles, etcetera.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 

message: :Great essay!
:I came across this phenomenon a long time ago, but I didn't know there was an essay about it!
:However, people have often disagreed with me -- although I've been a Wikipedian for a long time, but that doesn't mean anything. I've made a lot of edits, but a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia... -- Rico 21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hah, thanks. I originally got to know this phenomenon when the page for the Second Lebanon War was hit very hard with it during the first few weeks of the war. -- 132.68.204.104 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 

message: I am not sure that I fully agree with these endorsements. While I can appreciate that it leads to less conflict, and is therefore less demanding on editors, I am not so sure that it leads to an achievement of  Wiki's purpose regarding its clients. Let us take the case of Creation–evolution_controversy - specifically radiometric dating. As it is currently structured in Wiki, WP:ATM is not respected. The reader is supplied with the two views juxtaposed in a section of the sub-topic. Exactly the same applies to the sub-sections Cosmology, Transitional Fossils, Geology, etc. Imagine that the structure were changed to a presentation of the Creationist and Evolutionist positions in consecutive sections. No reader with a wish for a brief scan is going to bother to keep the left index finger pointed to a piece of text, so as to scan ahead to find the opposing view. In fact, my POV is that too many contentious Wiki articles follow WP:ATM in the process obscuring the valuable resource of juxtaposed interpretations which provide the reader with the possibility to make their own conclusions as to relative merit. In my field of interest, a classic case of this is evidenced in Gaza_beach_explosion_(2006) an article whose current form, respecting WP:ATM I find to be sub-optimal and for which my alternative draft in 'Talk', arranged by subtopic, was rejected. In my view that served to obscure the detail of the relative credibility and hence the value of the respective HRW and IDF positions, something which I believe (yes, another POV) reduces the value of Wiki as a source of useful information.
Any comments and advice would be welcomed Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2017 

message: I love this essay. <3! Octane [improve me?]  18.03.08 1218 (UTC)
This essay addresses the structural problems of thread mode, however, it doesn't, however, address the problem of Wikipedians, however, who use the word "however" when it adds absolutely nothing to a sentence, or there is no real contrast to the earlier part of the sentence. This doesn't seem quite so bad in writing but if you read it out loud it sounds terrible. Writers get in the habit of using "however" as a way to pause mid sentence, when a comma already provides that. If you can delete the word "however" and the sentence still makes sense then you probably should delete it. -- 109.77.218.235 (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 

message: This essay is actually extremely informative and helpful. I often see controversy spiral into thread mode and it becomes extremely difficult to navigate, and the plethora of opinions one after the other is ultimately not super informative for the reader. Readability and neutrality is immediately improved once opposing viewpoints are organized into a narrative backbone. tofubird | ✉ 03:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2022 

message: The header of this essay says "WP:HOWEVER" redirects here but WP:HOWEVER actually redirects to MOS:EDITORIAL. Both redirects make sense, and it's a pity that this one isn't working. Perhaps a link between MOS:EDITORIAL and WP:ATM would work? Any other solutions? -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like WP:HOWEVER's target was changed by  in 2022. Since it's been stable at the new target for a year, that appears to be the status quo. I went ahead and removed mention of WP:HOWEVER from this essay for now. It can always be changed again if folks desire. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

text: User:Novem Linguae, User:Doug Weller, thanks. I understand why the redirect is going to MOS:EDITORIAL, though I  did like the redirect to here. That's because it's instructive about how the apparent aim of achieving 'balance' with a counter-point can sometimes be perceived as form of competitive editing, or adversariality. And that is also what MOS:EDITORIAL is about. So it's good for editors to cross-reference the two. How do we bring WP:ATM and MOS:EDITORIAL closer together? -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty redirect