While reviewing the suggested edits queue, I ran across a number of new tag wiki excerpts from the same user, all starting with "For issues relating to". For example:

  • gantt: For issues relating to creating or displaying gantt charts.
  • divide-by-zero: For issues relating to handling or preventing divide by zero operations.
  • findall: For issues relating to utilizing FindAll operations.
  • window-resize: For issues relating to programatically or manually resizing application windows.
  • delphi-3: For issues related to development in Delphi, version 3.
  • delphi-4: For issues related to development in Delphi, version 4.
  • delphi-6: For issues related to development in Delphi, version 6.
  • outlook-2003: For issues relating to integrating with Microsoft Outlook, release 2003.

I believe that the prefixing phrase "For issues relating to" is unnecessary (what would it be, issues not related to?), and is just cluttering up the small tag-wiki box that could be put to better use adding more context. So, I rejected a few of these edits as

"For issues relating to" is not necessary, and is just clutter.

Some of these edits were rejected, but most were approved. Curious, I went and looked at that user's suggested edits, and saw a whole slew of edits along these same lines. I'd estimate, at a glance, that about 200-250 of that user's 1,200 (!) suggested edits have been to tag wiki excerpts, and most of those include that phrase. I've seen this phrase crop up a bunch in wiki excerpts, and wondered if this was accepted policy. I now believe this user's responsible for most of these.

  • Is this an acceptable phrase to include in tag wiki excerpts?
  • If it's not, what's the appropriate thing to do? Should I not worry about it, what's done is done? If it's something worthy of cleanup, it's too much to do manually, and would likely get me flagged (rightly) as a vigilante, editing 200 posts in one go.

Hi everyone! I have a problem with the program I am writing. I hope you can help me fix it. The issue has to do with...

We don't approve of that, and we shouldn't approve of "For issues relating to" for the same reason.

I doubt that it's worth your/anyone's time to actually go edit all those instances back out, though. Best to just let it happen naturally. I do feel bad for the editor, seems like he had the best of intentions.

  • Yeah, I agree with you about the editor's intentions. I'd just like him to change his ways. – Michael Petrotta Dec 21 '11 at 18:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .