Repetition in "Setting your commit email address" article

[julerex]

Code of Conduct

• [X] I have read and agree to the GitHub Docs project's Code of Conduct

What article on docs.github.com is affected?

https://docs.github.com/en/account-and-profile/setting-up-and-managing-your-personal-account-on-github/managing-email-preferences/setting-your-commit-email-address

What part(s) of the article would you like to see updated?

Consider this data reusables.user-settings.no-verification-disposable-emails note.

The statement "If you'd like to keep your email address private, you can use a GitHub-provided noreply email address" is repeated directly after the Note.

Furthermore, within the Note, the "Setting your commit email address" link has the same title as the article itself, which is confusingly self-referential. Also, the link actually points to a heading that appears just after the Note, rather than the top of the article as one would expect from the link title.

Perhaps this reusable note should be replaced with a sentence that conveys the same information without repetition. Reduction in repetition increases clarity, especially for a novice reader.

Additional information

No response

[welcome[bot]]

Thanks for opening this issue. A GitHub docs team member should be by to give feedback soon. In the meantime, please check out the contributing guidelines.

[nguyenalex836]

@julerex Thanks for opening this issue! I'll get this triaged for review ✨

[janbrasna]

The article consists of two chapters (sans the intro/about):

1. Setting the author on GitHub(.com)
2. Setting the author in Git (client, locally)

So the link IMHO links the right chapter, only the title ([AUTOTITLE] to be exact) doesn't mention the correct heading — see #31829 — making the link/reference appear circular :(

Regarding the repetition, the reusable is currently used here: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Agithub%2Fdocs%20no-verification-disposable-emails&type=code — I'll check all the pages for similar repetition, but if it's only in this instance, I'd say it's safe to omit the repeating part outside the reusable (only checking which formulation is newer, as they differ slightly).

[gsosm0760]

Emeğinize sağlık

[gsosm0760]

Emeğinize sağlık

[nguyenalex836]

@janbrasna @julerex

I'd say it's safe to omit the repeating part outside the reusable

Agreed ✨ I've added our help wanted label to this issue and anyone may submit a PR with this update 💛