If we are going to try to RefactorFasterDeleteMore
, maybe we need to have a place to put borderline material, concerns or debates about current refactoring. My picture as I create this page is that anything on it for more than a week should either be deleted or moved elsewhere. But we're in BlackaddersMap
country here. --RichardDrake
NatureOfOrder and stuff
A whole lot of duplication and incorrect page references were corrected in this and related pages. You can tell some good has been done with this kind of refactoring when there are some simple redirect or very small pages left, like TheNatureOfOrder
in this case. Correcting all the references to pages like this can be time consuming but I find it very therapeutic, especially after the trauma of a WikiStroke
is a new page which helped me to get nearer OnceAndOnlyOnce
and improve on the confusing old name TheNatureOfOrder
which was still advertising this event from 1997!
is the other new one that allowed me to clean up and present as a single page what I found to be a very helpful summary of the pro-Alexander viewpoint by RalphJohnson
. The rewards of the HumbleRefactorer
Those who are expert in these areas, please forgive any ineptness in naming of these two pages. See also RefactoringAndReconciliation?
A quick job separating the discussion into DiversityIsSmotheredOnWiki
, deleting a few pieces that usefully fell between those pages, and tidying up the older spin off, WikiAsXpTrainingCourse
' very helpful summary of pre-1998 discussions in the very same areas, now in WikiConsensus
, is a warning and reminder of how much repetition we've got to attend to around here, before the HumbleRefactorer
can rest easy.
Question for advanced refactorers:
should the first sentence of the second paragraph of VoiceOfWiki
refer as it does to WikiSuccessCanInhibitNewWriters
, where the deleted piece was in history
posted or to DiversityIsSmotheredOnWiki
, where the empty space left
is now commemorated (in the second section) after RefactorByExtractingToPage
The italic signed explanation by JeffShelby
was refactored and reduced to make allowance for the fact that the comment containing the original link to the page had been deleted (thank you AnonymousHero
). The paragraph is now much tidier and therefore (in my view) easier to read.
didn't write these exact words. In particular he never said (now sadly no more)
. My strong preference though (for simplicity and naturalness) is to "put these words in his mouth". Anyone disagree? Should this paragraph now be anonymous?
Yes, it should be anonymous. Leaving the signature implies a sort of "pure authorship" that is removed by what's known on wiki as an element of "refactoring" and EverywhereElse as "paraphrasing." Unless, of course, we can use the same conventions to highlight a paraphrase as EverywhereElse. -- KevinKinnell
You're entirely right Kevin that I would sometimes keep such paraphrases signed. I don't want to lose the "signal" that the original thought was from that person. But I also want a tidy end result. I believe that hard and fast rules aren't as easy to apply as they sound. Or they just lead to such mediocre results, in terms of readability, that nobody bothers to refactor much of Wiki at all. Which is the reality all around us.
Oh, and talking of EverywhereElse
, let's take the WikiNewspaperAnalogy
for a spin.
Dialogue in the refactoring and deletion process should be encouraged.
See DeletionConventions for some emerging dialogue [April 2002]