User talk:MBParker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your edits to WebDAV

Hi, thanks for your contributions to the WebDAV article. However, you've converted a lot of information into lists and the Manual of Style frowns on too many lists. Unless the information is made of individual items, a simple paragraph or paragraphs of text should be used. It's easier to read that way. Thanks. --Imroy 08:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Response: You're welcome for the contributions. They took a few hours to research and write-up for wikipedia, so your positive words are appreciated. And thanks for the manual reference. Which exact text are you referring to (perhaps you can quote some of it) so I know exactly what you're talking about? Most notably, since bulk of the research I added has been deleted (I've asked the user who did it why). Yes, I converted a few paragraphs to lists.

• One of them, now that you point it out, I clearly see I could strip it the 4 bullets. They are 4 symmetric points, and originally there was a topic paragraph for them, but I later saw I could remove the topic paragraph(implict) and forgot then that I could also remove then the 4 bullets.
• The other was a quite useful bit of information which another user had contributed, but also necessarily technically complex and so a bit difficult to follow the logic without a few nested bullets (as subpoints within subpoints s/he was making, in considerable detail). Indeed, after editing it, I showed to an author who has published a few books (real world, not electronic) and she said the conversion was much more readable (especially to a non-technical author as she is) especially now that the nesting clearly visualized the structure it was talking about; it was also faster to read, and less overwhelming than a complex & run-on paragraph. But that was deleted, along with all my other research there, for a different reason (an alleged "similar section"), which I'm waiting from the user to hear about). Though a couple of bullets I would have liked to not do but I didn't quickly see how to just indent without bullets (when I spaced it in, it boxed the text).

So I guess you're talking about the first section? Sincerely, --MBParker 11:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I was mostly referring to your list of clients and servers. There used to be a list of clients, servers, and services in the article. But as you can imagine, it grew and grew until JonHarder removed it last October. After all, Wikipedia is not a directory. I believe that's what Reshke was referring to.

I saw you incorporated the section I wrote about the Windows clients and the bugs in the "mini-redirector". That was lost when Reshke removed your list and I'll see to resurrecting it. Anyway, the style here on Wikipedia is to prefer text over lists. I can see how you might think it simplifies things, but I'd disagree. Lists change the visual flow of information and can be distracting. Almost all of the individual items about the Windows clients could be simply pulled out of the list and concatenated into a paragraph and still make sense. So I feel that the use of lists (especially nested links) in that case was unnecessary, and did not help with understanding the subject. If anything, the fourth-level items could be left as items in two short lists - 'clients' and 'problems', the rest could be formatted as paragraphs of text. --Imroy 13:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have resurrected the original text, because I didn't intend to kill it, after all. Looking at it, it seems to me it really doesn't belong here, though. The Wikipedia entry should not be a substitute to Microsoft's support. Minimally, this information should go to a separate page. Reschke 10:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)