User talk:SchroCat: Difference between revisions

You reverted my edit to the Emily Davison article, saying “It was perfectly appropriate before. Rather than edit warring, use the talk page.” I didn’t participate in an edit war; but your reversion of my legitimate edit could be viewed in that light. You did not use the talk page as a means of resolving what you saw as an issue, but I am doing just that.

Before making the edit in question, I carefully reviewed the Wikipedia Manual of Style content that I referenced in my edit summary when applying my edit, in good faith. If there was some sort of edit war going on prior to that, I was unaware of it.

In reverting my valid and legitimate edit, you said, “It was perfectly appropriate before.” That’s not actually the case according to MOS:RANGE which (for this use case) states, “when either or both elements of the range include at least one space, hyphen, or en dash; in such cases, {{snd}} between them will provide the proper formatting.” WP specifically states that the proper formatting is attained by to using {{snd}}. It does not offer as an appropriate alternative. While it may be true that appears equivalent to the naked eye, that does not rise to the level of “perfectly appropriate” in terms of wikitext syntax recommended by WP in MOS:RANGE.

Further, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM encourages editors to make proactive changes where they appear warranted, which specifically includes wikitext and formatting. WP:EPTALK further elaborates, “Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes, fixing problems, and changes that you believe are unlikely to be controversial. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes.” As such, my minor and unlikely to be controversial edit to bring the wikitext syntax into compliance with the proscribed WP styling was legitimate, in accordance with WP policies, and guidelines and resulted in the article being at least as good as it was prior to my edit, and arguably an improvement as it more accurately adhered to the standards set forth in MOS:RANGE. Please revert your reversion, or provide additional insight that may justify continued deviation from the WP standards and policies upon which my edit was founded. My thanks ahead of time in either case. ShoneBrooks (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“I didn’t participate in an edit war; but your reversion of my legitimate edit could be viewed in that light“: nonsense. See WP:BRD and take on board that you made a Bold edit; I Reverted it; you then needed to Discuss it, not edit war: your revert was edit warring, however you cut it.As to the rest of your overlong nonsense, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the format “11 October 1872 – 8 June 1913”: it is used (correctly) in thousands of articles and doesn’t need to be changed based on your personal whim. It was good enough to pass like that when it went through PR and FAC and doesn’t need a ridiculous change that makes no difference whatsoever. Time to move on and do something useful, rather than dick around with pointless nonsense. The MOS is a flexible set of guidelines, not the ten commandments or something to be fetishised and worshipped. – SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.