Wikipedia talk:Refactoring talk pages/Edit instead

After doing a great deal of editing on the Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages article, trying to explain how refactoring is not equivalent to editing, I've come to the opinion that such an assertion is untrue and may be a harmful implication to talk page editors. ("Refactoring" is the process of editing text presentation while preserving the authors' intentions and meaning.)

However, I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that refactoring can be accomplished. Unlike computer programming (where the term comes from), text presentation/context is inextricably linked to its perceived meaning. I think we should call this process editing, or copy editing, instead of refactoring.

This is a significant change because it encourages beneficial behavior. The term refactoring is misleading. Even the smallest edits: moving text, indentation fixes, creating summaries - will affect perceived meaning, I believe that is unavoidable. Calling the process refactoring masks that truth.

(I don't yet know enough about Wikipedia to file this proposal properly. I think that a few things should happen if it has consensus: all mentions of refactoring talk pages should be replaced with editing (or copy editing) and this article should be moved. Please help me figure this part out.)

-DanDanRevolution 04:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please provide your opinions: (Yay or Nay?)

Moo - so far I thought that editing talk pages is the process of adding / fixing / striking own signed content. And refactoring is either archiving old crap (the only way I've used so far is delete stuff + insert link to history, but there are of course more elaborated procedures). Minor cases of refactoring are sorting sections roughly by topic / age, e.g. create a h2-"=="-section "before 2006", and replace h2 by h3 "===" for all old sections below it. -- Omniplex 09:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Omniplex, this is covered under archiving a talk page. It isn't relevant to this discussion because archiving is a seperate process. For more information on refactoring, see here and here. (Also, sorting a talk page archive by topic rather than chronologically goes against the talk page guidelines.) --DanDanRevolution 13:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First "here" didn't help, the second is a bad idea: Touching signed content of others is critical. Archiving / moving: okay. Removing: rarely. Editing: never. -- Omniplex 18:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Omniplex, I don't think that your sentiments have consensus.

Both of these references are guidelines:

• Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page comments that "Refactoring a talk page is an alternative to, or is complementary to, archiving it."
• Wikipedia:talk_page_guidelines#When_there_is_too_much_text, suggest that editors should: "Summarize ("refactor"): See Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages for details on why and how to refactor talk pages."

The post that we are discussing here is not debating the merits of refactoring. It discusses what to name this process. --DanDanRevolution 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

One of your sources (an older version) used summarize. If you'd say "summarize and link to the edit history" it would be fine - actually I did that on some help talk pages (ab)used as dumping ground for Meta edit histories. -- Omniplex 03:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Omniplex, my post assumes that refactoring (or editing, as I would like to call it) of talk pages is recommended by guidelines. I've shown you two guidelines above that refer to refactoring as a recommended practice. I think "refactoring" should be renamed "editing". You seem to be discussing the merits of refactoring in general. ("Summarize and link to the edit history" is cumbersome and does not cover all of the possible methods of refactoring. (See WP:REFACTOR for methods.)) To reiterate: this page is about nomenclature. Not the process of refactoring in general. --DanDanRevolution 06:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

NOTE: Both for lack of participation and miscommunications (that were likely my fault), I think it's best to let this page go and to start anew with clearer and better targetted text. I plan to do that sometime in the future when I have more experience... --DanDanRevolution 06:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)