User talk:Xiphosura

Xiphosura, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Xiphosura! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

▼ Input chat here ▼ Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 01:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Parker Solar Probe

You just added something in the notes column in a table at Parker Solar Probe. And you wondered about wrapping, so as not to extend the cell. Just to let you know, I added every single note that's in that table, other than the one you just added. And the Page Break is the way I did it. Nobody has complained. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's how I ended up doing it as well. I don't know if it's an issue with VE in particular, but I've been hesitant to interact with tables because of how their formatting is handled, to a beginner like me, it is quite daunting to peer behind the scenes. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 09:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IM-1

OK--"Reinstating edits with no comments, reversion is unnecessary when it is possible to check what was edited. It is evidently just reference management"]--I don't really understand what that means. There is nothing here that is "evidently" clear to a simple editor like me. "When it is possible to check what is edited" moves the burden from the editor to the rest of the community, and that's not a good thing. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Apologies in advance for errors in formatting and the like, my first time using a talk page on a mobile device and while this looks fine, I may be missing something and I will address it once I have access to a PC again.

What I find evident from the edits is that there is nothing warranting reversion, the article is visually unchanged and in editing, the references are collected together in a list as opposed to spread throughout the article itself. This formatting makes plaintext editing a lot easier to navigate.

Sure, the burden is on the community to check edits without summaries, but surely as an admin you understand the importance of reviewing edits which arouse suspicion regardless of the summary? They may be missing, or even misleading. I personally always leave edit summaries as I understand their utility, but it is understandable some users see the (optional) tag and decide not to do so. As far as I am aware, it isn't WP policy to revert edits with no summary on principle. If I am mistaken, perhaps that (optional) tag needs to be addressed? Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 01:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, the burden isn't really on the community to "check edits without summaries"--I never said that, and I don't agree with it. I scrolled through the edit and it seemed to me as if the user was deleting sources, but what they were actually doing (although I don't understand why they didn't finish the job the first time or in the 53 other edits): they were actually changing the reference format, changing (some of the) references and moving them into a format with a list of citations in the "References" section. That's not really "management"--and changing a reference format in the first place typically requires consensus, and expecting an explanation in an edit summary is the very least one can expect. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]