Editing Policy:Editing
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision
Your text
Line 1:
Line 1: − {{Policy}}+ <big>Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect.</big> − {{nutshell|Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect.}}+ + + __TOC__ ==Perfection not required== ==Perfection not required== It is wonderful when someone adds a [[BattleTechWiki:The perfect article|complete, well-written, final draft]] to BattleTechWiki. This should always be encouraged. It is wonderful when someone adds a [[BattleTechWiki:The perfect article|complete, well-written, final draft]] to BattleTechWiki. This should always be encouraged. − However, one of the great advantages of the wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible. + However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or + poorly written first drafts of [[Wikipedia:What is an article|articles]] can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible. − One Editor can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. Another Editor can add a minority opinion. Someone else can round off the article with additional perspectives. Yet another can play up an angle that has been neglected, or reword the earlier opinions to a more [[Policy:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]. Another Editor might have facts and figures or a graphic to include, and yet another might fix the spelling and grammatical errors that have crept in throughout these multiple edits. Lastly, someone may work to bring the references section up to par, so that all Readers can find the original source material. + One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. + Another person can add a minority opinion. Someone else can round off the article with additional [[Perspective (cognitive)|perspective]]s. Yet another can play up an angle that has been neglected, or reword the earlier opinions to a more [[wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]. Another person might have facts and figures or a [[graphic]] to include, and yet another might fix the spelling and grammatical errors that have crept in throughout these multiple edits. − As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and refactor to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten... and so on. + As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and [[Wikipedia:Refactoring|refactor]] to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten... and so on. − During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Of course, we don't have to like it; we may occasionally criticize substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending section to the corresponding [[Policy:Talk page|talk page]], or in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however. + During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, + a random collection of notes and [[factoid]]s. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|editing process]] will turn it into [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|brilliant prose]]. Of course, we don't have to like it; we may occasionally criticize substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending section to the corresponding [[Wikipedia:talk page|talk page]], or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however. ==Editing styles== ==Editing styles== Line 17:
Line 22: *Some people edit lightly and focus on contributing new content. *Some people edit lightly and focus on contributing new content. *Others prefer to improve and greatly expand existing "stubs" and articles. *Others prefer to improve and greatly expand existing "stubs" and articles. − *Some like to make relatively small copyediting (such as grammar, spelling, clarification, and syntax) changes, as well as adding new links and [[BattleTechWiki:How to rename (move) a page|moving pages]] (so as to rename them without losing history and talk). + *Some like to make relatively small copyediting (such as grammar, spelling, clarification, and syntax) changes, as well as adding new links and [[Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page|moving pages]] (so as to rename them without losing history and talk). − There is room for all of this on BattleTechWiki. + There is room for all of this on Wikipedia. ===Boldness=== ===Boldness=== There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be: There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be: − *Generally, most of us think we should be bold in updating pages. + *Generally, most of us think we should [[wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|be bold in updating pages]]. *Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we would make little progress. *Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we would make little progress. − *Quite the contrary: some Editors think you should not beat around the bush at all—simply change a page immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion becomes the last resort. + *Quite the contrary: some Wikipedians think you should not beat around the bush at all—simply change a page immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion becomes the last resort. − *An intermediate viewpoint states dialogue should be respected, but at the same time, a minor tweak should be accepted. In this view, to edit radically or not will often depend on the context—which seems reasonable enough. + *An intermediate viewpoint accords that dialogue should be respected, but at the same time, a minor tweak should be accepted. In this view, to edit radically or not will often depend on the context—which seems reasonable enough. − There is a place for all of these attitudes on BattleTechWiki. + There is a place for all of these attitudes on Wikipedia. ===Major changes=== ===Major changes=== − With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. + With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. + One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments. So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include: So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include: − *duplication or redundancy + * duplication or redundancy − *irrelevancy + * irrelevancy − *inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion)+ * [[wikipedia:patent nonsense|patent nonsense]] − *[[BattleTechWiki:Patent nonsense|patent nonsense]] + * [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright violations]] − *[[BattleTechWiki:Copyright|copyright violations]] + * [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|inaccuracy]] (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion) Alternatives include: Alternatives include: − *rephrasing + * rephrasing − *correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content + * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content − *moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new) + * moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new) − *adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced + * adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced − *requesting a citation by adding the {{tl|cn}} tag + * requesting a citation by adding the {{tl|fact}} tag − If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about ''why'' you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later Editors that it is in fact false. + If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about ''why'' you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later editors that it is in fact false. − ==BattleTechWiki is not a discussion forum== + ==Wikipedia is not a discussion forum== − In any event, whether you decide to edit very boldly or to make inquiries on the talk page first, please bear in mind that BattleTechWiki is not a discussion forum. + In any event, whether you decide to edit very boldly or to make inquiries on the talk page first, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. − BattleTechWiki can be a very energetic place, and it's best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, favorite ideologies, factions, characters, etc. Some consideration of [[BattleTechWiki:Etiquette|Etiquette]] wouldn't hurt.+ Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it's best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc. + Some consideration of [[wikipedia:Wikiquette|Etiquette]] wouldn't hurt. ==Editing and refactoring talk pages== ==Editing and refactoring talk pages== For additional guidelines on editing and refactoring talk pages, see the following: For additional guidelines on editing and refactoring talk pages, see the following: − *[[Policy:Talk page]] + * [[Wikipedia:Talk page]] − *[[BattleTechWiki:Refactoring talk pages]] + * [[Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages]] + + + [[Category:BattleTechWiki]]
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | <big>Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect.</big> | |
| − | + | ||
| + | |||
| + | __TOC__ | ||
==Perfection not required== | ==Perfection not required== | ||
It is wonderful when someone adds a [[BattleTechWiki:The perfect article|complete, well-written, final draft]] to BattleTechWiki. This should always be encouraged. | It is wonderful when someone adds a [[BattleTechWiki:The perfect article|complete, well-written, final draft]] to BattleTechWiki. This should always be encouraged. | ||
| − | However, one of the great advantages of the | + | However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or |
| + | poorly written first drafts of [[Wikipedia:What is an article|articles]] can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible. | ||
| − | One | + | One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. |
| + | Another person can add a minority opinion. Someone else can round off the article with additional [[Perspective (cognitive)|perspective]]s. Yet another can play up an angle that has been neglected, or reword the earlier opinions to a more [[wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]. Another person might have facts and figures or a [[graphic]] to include, and yet another might fix the spelling and grammatical errors that have crept in throughout these multiple edits. | ||
| − | As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and refactor to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten... and so on. | + | As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and [[Wikipedia:Refactoring|refactor]] to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten... and so on. |
| − | During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and | + | During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, |
| + | a random collection of notes and [[factoid]]s. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|editing process]] will turn it into [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|brilliant prose]]. Of course, we don't have to like it; we may occasionally criticize substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending section to the corresponding [[Wikipedia:talk page|talk page]], or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however. | ||
==Editing styles== | ==Editing styles== | ||
| Line 17: | Line 22: | ||
*Some people edit lightly and focus on contributing new content. | *Some people edit lightly and focus on contributing new content. | ||
*Others prefer to improve and greatly expand existing "stubs" and articles. | *Others prefer to improve and greatly expand existing "stubs" and articles. | ||
| − | *Some like to make relatively small copyediting (such as grammar, spelling, clarification, and syntax) changes, as well as adding new links and [[ | + | *Some like to make relatively small copyediting (such as grammar, spelling, clarification, and syntax) changes, as well as adding new links and [[Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page|moving pages]] (so as to rename them without losing history and talk). |
| − | There is room for all of this on | + | There is room for all of this on Wikipedia. |
===Boldness=== | ===Boldness=== | ||
There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be: | There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be: | ||
| − | *Generally, most of us think we should be bold in updating pages. | + | *Generally, most of us think we should [[wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|be bold in updating pages]]. |
*Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we would make little progress. | *Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we would make little progress. | ||
| − | *Quite the contrary: some | + | *Quite the contrary: some Wikipedians think you should not beat around the bush at all—simply change a page immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion becomes the last resort. |
| − | *An intermediate viewpoint | + | *An intermediate viewpoint accords that dialogue should be respected, but at the same time, a minor tweak should be accepted. In this view, to edit radically or not will often depend on the context—which seems reasonable enough. |
| − | There is a place for all of these attitudes on | + | There is a place for all of these attitudes on Wikipedia. |
===Major changes=== | ===Major changes=== | ||
| − | With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. | + | With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. |
| + | One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. | ||
If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments. | If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments. | ||
So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include: | So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include: | ||
| − | *duplication or redundancy | + | * duplication or redundancy |
| − | *irrelevancy | + | * irrelevancy |
| − | + | * [[wikipedia:patent nonsense|patent nonsense]] | |
| − | *[[ | + | * [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright violations]] |
| − | *[[ | + | * [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|inaccuracy]] (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion) |
Alternatives include: | Alternatives include: | ||
| − | *rephrasing | + | * rephrasing |
| − | *correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content | + | * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content |
| − | *moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new) | + | * moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new) |
| − | *adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced | + | * adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced |
| − | *requesting a citation by adding the {{tl| | + | * requesting a citation by adding the {{tl|fact}} tag |
| − | If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about ''why'' you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later | + | If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about ''why'' you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later editors that it is in fact false. |
| − | == | + | ==Wikipedia is not a discussion forum== |
| − | In any event, whether you decide to edit very boldly or to make inquiries on the talk page first, please bear in mind that | + | In any event, whether you decide to edit very boldly or to make inquiries on the talk page first, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. |
| − | + | Wikipedia can be a very energetic place, and it's best for the project as a whole if we concentrate our energies on improving articles rather than defending our pet theories, ideologies, religions, etc. | |
| + | Some consideration of [[wikipedia:Wikiquette|Etiquette]] wouldn't hurt. | ||
==Editing and refactoring talk pages== | ==Editing and refactoring talk pages== | ||
For additional guidelines on editing and refactoring talk pages, see the following: | For additional guidelines on editing and refactoring talk pages, see the following: | ||
| − | *[[ | + | * [[Wikipedia:Talk page]] |
| − | *[[ | + | * [[Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages]] |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:BattleTechWiki]] | ||