User talk:Msh210/Archive/marking edits minor
Add topicLatest comment: 14 years ago by Doremítzwr in topic foorth
This page is an archive of old discussion. Please don't edit this page. If you wish to communicate with me (msh210), you can do so at User talk:Msh210. Thanks!
I changed the definition you gave for foorth from an obsolete spelling of forth to an obsolete spelling of ford, since the OED listed it as an old variant of the latter, but not of the former. Do you have any evidence which shows that (deprecated template usage) foorth is also an obsolete spelling of (deprecated template usage) forth? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes: google books:+foorth. I've reinstated the adverb section.—msh210℠ 18:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's both (as well as an eye-dialect spelling of fourth), it seems. Visviva's fixed things. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh! I edited your revision of the page (linked to above), not realizing there were more recent ones. I'm glad Visviva's fixed it. I do think that the adverb is an
{{obsolete spelling of|forth}}rather than an{{archaic spelling of|forth}}, but I've messed up the entry enough already.—msh210℠ 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh! I edited your revision of the page (linked to above), not realizing there were more recent ones. I'm glad Visviva's fixed it. I do think that the adverb is an
- Agreed. Changed. BTW, I notice that all your contributions are flagged as minor edits, even when they involve net additions or deductions of over a kilobyte of data; why? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- So many of my edits are minor (as deemed by me, more on this in a moment) that I sometimes, out of habit, flag edits as minor that I oughtn't. I don't have a hard-and-fast rule about what I should flag as minor (and AFAIK enwikt doesn't, either), but my criteria certainly do not include a maximum number of bytes. As one example, my edits to discussion pages usually get marked as minor unless they are of particular importance. As others, those to content pages usually get marked as minor if they are only adding usage examples, rewording definitions a little, adding an etymology whose content is
{{prefix}}, or the like.—msh210℠ 19:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- So many of my edits are minor (as deemed by me, more on this in a moment) that I sometimes, out of habit, flag edits as minor that I oughtn't. I don't have a hard-and-fast rule about what I should flag as minor (and AFAIK enwikt doesn't, either), but my criteria certainly do not include a maximum number of bytes. As one example, my edits to discussion pages usually get marked as minor unless they are of particular importance. As others, those to content pages usually get marked as minor if they are only adding usage examples, rewording definitions a little, adding an etymology whose content is
- My general rule is that I mark as minor AF-style revisions (if I remember). IMO, whereas Ruakh's edit is minor, yours that follows it certainly isn't. If a revision is significant and other editors who have the page watchlisted would reasonably be expected to care about it, then it shouldn't be marked as minor, because editors who filter out minor edits from their watchlist summaries would not see it. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, that edit of mine was in error: I thought I was merely reinstating the removed "Adverb" section. I don't mind marking such an edit as minor. WP ("When not to mark an edit as a minor edit: [1] Adding or removing content in an article") agrees with you. Perhaps this is a discussion for the BP.—msh210℠ 20:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- We already have an equivalent: Help:Minor edit. I think our page better suits our purposes. Do you find it agreeable? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't know we had that page; thanks for the link! Very well: I'll try to adhere to its guidelines henceforth. ("Try" because old habits, of course, die hard.) The page seems, however, to be discussing content pages. Do you think the community would find it acceptable for me to mark discussion-page edits as minor unless I'm saying something particularly major?—msh210℠ 14:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't have a problem with such a personal policy. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)