Discussion Rule Word Salad

[FinePoint]

This should be very simple.

The current rule about summaries as written in the Discussion Rules is this:

The opening post of a content revision thread has to include a clear summary in the opening post what major changes are being made so that everyone involved in the discussion will be on the same page.

There's needless repetition and I'm also not sure it's even grammatically correct.

I propose it be changed to this:

The opening post of a content revision thread has to include a clear summary of what major changes are being made so that everyone involved in the discussion will be on the same page.

 

[Nierre]

seems okay

I was just reading the Discussion Rules page so that's funny timing

 

[Planck69]

Looks fine.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Sure

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good to me.

 

[Random-Helper323]

This seems better.

 

[Vietthai96]

The opening post of a content revision thread has to include a clear summary of what major changes are being made so that everyone involved in the discussion will be on the same page.

ngl, i feel this mean we only need to list major changes, and can ignore minor changes. Should we list every changes in a CRT?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that this is perfectly fine.

 

[Antvasima]

ngl, i feel this mean we only need to list major changes, and can ignore minor changes. Should we list every changes in a CRT?

Good point.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Yes, I'd say remove the word "major" from that.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Agreed.

 

[FinePoint]

Well I think the reason is that some revisions are complete overhauls of profiles, and it may be excessive to list, for example, every single grammatical change in a summary.

Though if the changes themselves can be summarized, like, 'various grammatical changes', then I suppose that works.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Grammatical changes can generally be made without a CRT though.

 

[Vietthai96]

Well I think the reason is that some revisions are complete overhauls of profiles, and it may be excessive to list, for example, every single grammatical change in a summary.

Though if the changes themselves can be summarized, like, 'various grammatical changes', then I suppose that works.

Well, people just need to list the changes, list in what way depend on them, because we still discussing in the CRT anyway

 

[FinePoint]

Grammatical changes can generally be made without a CRT though.

Well in this case it's being coupled with other changes that do, regardless I think you get my point that a CRT can include a ton of small changes, and so we should allow numerous minor changes to be abbreviated as such if listing them individually becomes less of a summary and more just a one to one repeat of what's in the sandbox.

 

[Vietthai96]

As i have said, Thread makers don't need to be too specific with minor changes, just list them so people are aware that there are changes

 

[FinePoint]

As i have said, Thread makers don't need to be too specific with minor changes, just list them so people are aware that there are changes

That's what I'm saying.

In terms of the rule, should we just remove 'major' and enforce it like that, or should we specify in the rule itself that they don't need to list every single change individually if it's not practical?

 

[Vietthai96]

That's what I'm saying.

In terms of the rule, should we just remove 'major' and enforce it like that, or should we specify in the rule itself that they don't need to list every single change individually if it's not practical?

i think we let people choose how to present the changes, they could list them extremely specific or slightly loose, as long as changes are mentioned, then it is fine

 

[Antvasima]

That's what I'm saying.

In terms of the rule, should we just remove 'major' and enforce it like that, or should we specify in the rule itself that they don't need to list every single change individually if it's not practical?

I personally think that it seems sufficient to remove the word "major".