Template talk:Uw-brd

Simplifying this

The text here is pretty appalling. The second sentence (there are only two) has 48 words and four uses of the passive voice. If you are interested in Readability scores, it scores at the post-graduate level. We shouldn't have basic messages that are written for grad students.

I'd like to simplify it to just the key points:

• Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the Editing policy, please join me in a discussion on the talk page instead of reinstating the edit.

This change removes all links to essays. It links to one official guideline and two major policies. It also follows BRD, which says "The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.", by indicating that the person who is leaving this message is willing to discuss the question. BRD also says in the WP:BRD-NOT section If you don't want to talk about it... ...then don't tell other editors to follow BRD. (bold in the original), so I think it is appropriate to emphasize that the person posting a note about discussing this should be discussing it.

Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think keeping the link to BRD is best. Try to at least do that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I considered changing the link to WP:FOLLOWBRD (since I suspect that, rather than the page that begins by telling you that BRD is strictly optional, is what was really meant), but I figured that someone might complain about me linking to "my" essay. (You and I know it's not "my" essay, but we also know that unfounded accusations are very easy to make.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a pressing need to shorten it but compromise is good, so I'll give it a try while keeping some of the information in the original, as it is especially helpful for newbies. Let's look at both versions and a third option:

Original

• "Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and the dispute should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it or an alternate version."

Proposed

• "Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the Editing policy, please join me in a discussion on the talk page instead of reinstating the edit."

Third option

• "Your recent BOLD edit has been REVERTED, so, per the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle (BRD), it's time for you to DISCUSS this on the talk page instead of edit warring by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can be formed to keep it or an alternate version."

The third option's length is between the original and your proposal and keeps some of your wording. The bold caps illustrate the BRD aspect more clearly, and the wikilinks to PAG lead to more information. Also, the "consensus" link is kept, and the "edit warring" aspect is stated plainly. (They are intricately linked concepts.) Newbies aren't always good at following wikilinks before acting or replying. They often need to have things "spelled out" right up front.

I resisted the temptation to link to Short BRD . IIRC, it largely contains what you removed (nearly everything of mine) when you moved/hijacked it to Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the all-caps is going to feel like shouting, which isn't the right feel. I'm also not sure that we need to mention each of those keywords twice in the same sentence. (Also, it's time for "us" to discuss, not time for "you" to discuss, and if "Short BRD" were actually short, I'd be happy to link to it. IMO less experienced editors need something like WP:42 for this subject. WP:EPTALK comes closer to that goal than any of the essays.)

I suggest that you paste the first sentence of the "third option" into https://hemingwayapp.com/ (just replace the highlighted text in the middle of that website's main page with whatever text you want to test). You can then edit it on screen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with that Hemingway app. Pretty cool. That is indeed a long sentence, and the repetition isn't necessary if we just link BRD. BTW, WP:Short BRD#Short version is short so I've tried it. The full essay just includes further reading for those who wish. WP:EPTALK is good, so I've used it. Here's a revision of the third option.

Fourth option

• "Your recent Bold edit has been Reverted, so, per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page instead of edit warring by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can be formed to keep it or an alternate version."

How's that? It's much shorter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

(Tangent...When I read Hemingway, Steinbeck, Conrad, and now Delia Owens, I despair at ever being a really good writer. Their mastery of the language is amazing.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I like that version better. What do you think about changing "instead of edit warring by reinstating the edit" to a separate sentence, like "Please don't edit war or reinstate the edit" or "It's better for editors to talk than to repeatedly reinstate edits"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ooohhh! Luv it. That's much better. Avoiding edit wars is what it's all about, and what newbies don't understand. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's look at them:

1. "Please don't edit war or reinstate the edit."

2. "It's better for editors to talk than to repeatedly reinstate edits."

Edit warring is hidden in the wikilink in the second version, and the talking is already mentioned. How about this tweak of the first one:

3. "Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit."

Fifth version

• "Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version."

Are we getting closer? "This version is officially approved by Hemingway." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a big improvement. Would you like to make the edit? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it was your idea, so go ahead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ping WhatamIdoing -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

first variable?

This template's instructions seems to indicate that including the article's name as the first variable (e.g. {{subst:uw-brd|apple pie}}) will include its name in the ensuing substituted message. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)