![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hello,
I have taken content from my father's website to build his Wikipedia page. I saw the note left by someone at Wikipedia that there was plagerism. After looking further, I found the solution. My father will be sending you an e-mail from an address associated with the website releasing the content to be on Wikipedia. This whole navigation process of the page building tool is complicated. Can you please acknowledge this note and tell me what to do next?
Thanks, Peter Kpa-advisory ( talk) 21:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
My username is Kpa-advisory
@ Kpa-advisory: see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. But please note that even if there were no legal obstacles, such material is probably not suitable for Wikipedia for other reasons: you shouldn't source a page about a person form his website ( WP:AUTOBIO). Also, this is the wrong forum for your query; this page is for disucssing how to improve the help page at: Help:Using talk pages – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, it is not yet possible to edit Wikipedia talk pages without writing markup code. There was a project called WP:Flow that was supposed to make talk pages more user-friendly, but it was canceled last year. Will it someday be possible to edit talk pages using VisualEditor instead? Jarble ( talk) 19:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to replace the indentation section with a shorter explanation. I think indentation is better explained at Wikipedia:indentation than it is here. Moreover, I believe a shorter explanation is much less intimidating to new editors (who are the primary target of this page). I propose an explanation similar to that of fr.wiki or Wikipedia: the missing manual. It would look like this:
Would anyone object? Atón ( talk) 09:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe wrote Counting colons, when there are more than four or five, and remembering how many colons when the preceding post is more than three lines, is hard [1] in reply to my question as to why it is hard to get wp:string right when editing from a 'phone.
This may explain why they and many other users mis-string, with I think increasing regularity.
Do our guidelines need a tweak? This problem can be predicted to snowball with time, IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please clearly compare, & contrast
Wikipedia:Talk_page pages with
Wikipedia:Teahouse discussions of Wikipedia topics. The descriptions of both are complex, and perhaps confusing, as I have been rebuked for using the Talk tab to discuss & suggest changes to a topic, but without reference or links to any specific comparison & distinction between the appropriate use of each. The basis that I understand for using the Wikipedia:
Teahouse is that some (?all) reviewers / maintainers, find it easier to scan recent additions to a single page rather than Talk throughout Wikipedia. If so, perhaps that explanation should be added/linked to both pages & the Talk page template.
Wikidity (
talk)
19:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I was blocked. I was not intentionally trying to break rules. Please restore me back. I am still learning. Ytteb1015 ( talk) 21:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)ytteb1015 Ytteb1015 ( talk) 21:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move. Will request implementation at WP:RM/TR ( non-admin closure) TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Help:Using talk pages →
Help:Talk pages – Unnecesarily specific title name. The article are about talk pages and how to use them. By being in the
"Help" namespace, the verb-fication of the title is retundant. I can fix it myself in a few days if no-one objects.(should have read
the rules)
Gaioa (
talk)
15:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
These pages contain information intended to help use Wikipedia or its software.Help use. The fact that it is in the Help namespace already suggests that it is about using something. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 19:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Mandruss: Numbering editors in the order in which they are displayed on the page ( diff) avoids the issue of what should happen when another editor wants to reply to the second comment. I don't particularly care what the guideline says because it is pretty irrelevant for how things are done—I have tried to explain indenting to a few good editors who simply don't get it and never will. However, the example should tackle the tricky issue. If I were making the tricky comment, I would insert it as shown in the example if the comments were fairly brief and it wasn't a highly active page like ANI. If those conditions did not apply, I would probably add my new reply at the bottom with some reference to the comment I was replying to. These considerations are probably a bit advanced for the guideline, but an example with everything numbered in ascending order makes it appear that the comments were added in that order, despite the timestamps which currently show Editor 3 as being after Editor 4 which is a bit strange. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
We got this largest talk page in here. I been trying using talkpage helps to classifications some talk page options to ensure a solution in this section. Been trying get some veteran Wikipedia editors to review a solution to finalized a talk page section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusriderSF2015 ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The " Indentation" section is inadequate because it does not explain how to create a response that contains more than one paragraph. Apparently leaving a blank line is verboten, but the help page does not say what to do instead. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I must report abuse of 'editorial' power by this admin User:Mys_721tx on zh.wikipedia.org. It is most uncalled for to IP ban me for translating MAJOR 'lack' in Chinese language site. I am a profession en-> zh translator, former editor on poetry magazine as well.
IF you have a bit of time plus a slight curiosity, do look into my talk page there and see how incomprehensible the situation is, that admin thinks by translating his grandma's laundry list, I must meet certain 'standards' to use wikipedia resources now? I'd appreciate as much help as I can get, since I can't make contact with _any_ sane translators on my team during the time of 'ban'. This admin's personal 'dislike' of my output there is a grave loss to US all.
Regards
LairdUnlimited 03:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Allthingsgo zh:User_talk:Allthingsgo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthingsgo ( talk • contribs)
{{ helpme}} The Findhorn Foundation is my first edit. I did not to previous edits, that is, Rand corporation or Lowla Branz. Therefore, I think someone has hacked my account. I will change my password. Is there anything else I should do? Snicholls ( talk) 07:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This Wikipedia:Talk_pages_consultation_2019 may be of interest to followers of this page. II | ( t - c) 05:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
only a question, for protect every Talk page from vandalism or else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalininos ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Endemol_Shine_Group
Hi Guys,
On the Endemol Shine Group wikipedia page, I have suggested that Endemol being merged into the Endemol Shine Group page as Endemol merged into Endemol Shine Group. It makes sense to have the history of the company incorporated rather than having two separate pages I think, because people might get confused about the company. I thought about this when I was searching for who makes the TV show Black Mirror? But I was unsure whether it was Endemol or Endemol Shine Group. Oli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojmarson ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects.
Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun; as such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2. All users are invited to express their views. Individual WikiProjects, user groups and other communities may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 ( talk) 17:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey hey good People of Earth :) Hey how's it going? This chat topic that I'm going to broach is meta (ie. it's talk about Talk!) So I figured it probably belongs on a Wikipedia official page about (what are) Talk pages, **on the very Talk section** of that said page... That being said, I know Wikipedia is all about complete transparency, and history of edits, and contributions for all of its users, registered users, but isn't it a little strange that somebody can Watch (or set to watch) anyone else's User:Talk page? I forgot that I had a Friend's set to Watch for future replies to my own conversations, and so I'm continually seeing what people write on his page over time. So... along those lines, is there a setting or feature where you can see a list of who's watching which pages, Wikipedia-wide? Or at least for ones own Talk page, is a user able to see a list of Wiki users who are watching it? I think that would be an interesting feature, suggestion, software enhancement! - What are your thoughts? Vid2vid ( talk) 00:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I've created an example of a talk page with inline explanations in my sandbox. It combines several elements in the same place, which are explained in more detail with individual examples on the help page itself. Would it make sense to add such an example to a subpage of Help:Talk pages? — andrybak ( talk) 09:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
There is currently no error message when a new discussion post is rejected on the mobile site. I was talking about something shown in a YouTube video and added a link to the video, but it was rejected since it was the shortened youtu.be version. There was no indication that it was rejected, so it wasn’t until I went to check back later that I realized the post was rejected and I had to type it over from scratch. LoyalSage ( talk) 14:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Any improvements you recommend? Draft:Rima_Nakabayashi 52-whalien ( talk) 08:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:THREAD says clearly how to reply to a single comment but gives no advice for replying to multiple comments at once. Suppose two people reply to a comment and one wants to reply to both replies at once, with a remark that inherently addresses both. Could WP:THREAD include guidance as to how one should do that? — 2d37 ( talk) 09:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
replyto}}
to show who you are replying to (as I did at the start of this post), and {{
tq}}
(as in a remark that inherently addresses both) to make it clear which question, sentence or phrase you are posting about. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Help:Talk pages#Indentation says Comments are indented using one or more initial colons (:), each colon representing one level of indentation.
However,
MOS:INDENTGAP says However, this markup alone is missing the required
<dt>
(term) element of a description list, to which the <dd>
(description/definition) pertains. As can be seen by inspecting the code sent to the browser, this results in broken HTML (i.e. it fails
validation
[1]). The result is that assistive technology, such as screen readers, will announce a description list that does not exist, which is confusing for any visitor unused to Wikipedia's broken markup. This is not ideal for accessibility,
semantics, or
reuse, but is currently commonly used, despite the problems it causes for users of screen readers.
The <dl>...</dl>
issue is addressed in Phabricator ticket
T6521, but shoildn't the two prescriptions be brought into alignment pending a resolution?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
15:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
References
dl
is missing a required child element."
Thanks for your clarification on pages of cited materials appearing in the body of the article. I was surprised when I saw them. I thought they were due to some mistakes made by me. Greatman012 ( talk) 14:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Currently, the convention is to have the comments in a Talk section from first in time to last. That is clearly best. Another convention, though, is to have the sections themselves, the topics, also in chronological order. Should this be changed to reverse chronological order?
I can't see a good argument for chronological order, except maybe in the Archives, but people mainly get to the Archives by Search anyway, not be browsing.
The argument for reverse chronological order is that most of the action is in the newest Section, and putting it first means less scrolling to start a new Section, to read one, or to edit one.
Should the convention be changed? This would involve changing the Help page here to tell people to add Sections at the Top, not the Bottom, and changing the software so that if the software does it automatically, it goes to top and not bottom. editeur24 ( talk) 21:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It could even be half-done without changing the software at all, just by changing the convention.You seem to be saying we should change they way we're all supposed to do it, but not change the software that works based on the supposed convention. That can't be right. And your
The current order is no better than random, so making some of the pages...leads me to conclude your proposal isn't really serious at all. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 19:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Some types of discussions use top-level bulleted lists, e.g.
requested moves. How should I post a top-level comment with multiple lines? Should I use :
for subsequent lines, or *
? If I want to include indented bullet points in my top-level comment, where should my signature go — at the end of the last bullet point, on a new unindented line, or somewhere else?
Rublov (
talk)
16:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I have inserted this new section about the new Reply Tool at Help:Talk pages.
This will be an opt-out feature which all desktop users will soon be seeing, following its successful trial in beta. Its rollout on English Wikipedia was initially intended for 7th February 2022. However, after discussions at WP:VPP, that rollout has been held back a short while so that as many users as possible are made aware of this feature, and for brief explanatory notes to be provided on Help pages and for users of other help fora to be made aware. Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, but I see that blank talk pages are now defaulting to a message that says "Start a discussion about" (e.g. Talk:Guillaume Hoorickx). Where was that decided? It seems problematic, in that talk pages discussions should be about the article rather than the subject. This is clarified in the subsequent message, but it still seems misleading to new editors. St Anselm ( talk) 18:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Were the Talk pages once called Discussion pages? If so, why was the name changed? John Link ( talk) 23:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know it is the right place to ask but someone accused me of having two accounts although I only have one account. How can I explain to him/her about this situation? RenRen070193 ( talk) 03:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Does the "Reply Tool" actually reply to the indicated user???. CapnZapp ( talk) 12:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I am having issues trying to reply to talk pages. I won't let me type a message. I have to use the edit article button instead. Cwater1 ( talk) 00:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, quick question: if I post to someone’s talk page, but then immediately revert that post, does the user still get a notification? — HTGS ( talk) 05:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel like there are a few things said in this video that do not apply anymore. MisterN1C022 ( talk) 22:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
When exactly was the Talk page added to Wikipedia? I couldn't find the answer on the article. Iamnotflour ( talk) 02:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
{{TALKPAGENAME}}
was
added to the software in version 1.7, which dates
from 2006. Pinging
Graham87 (
talk ·
contribs), who specialises in Wikipedia's history. --
John of Reading (
talk)
08:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:TPNEW says to start a new topic by clicking on the "New section" link. Experiment suggests the following occur with various skins.
Is the above correct? Can something simple be done so WP:TPNEW gives less puzzling advice? Johnuniq ( talk) 01:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
It would be a good thing if this was posted at the top of all article talk pages. Editors need to be reminded of its principles. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hello,
I have taken content from my father's website to build his Wikipedia page. I saw the note left by someone at Wikipedia that there was plagerism. After looking further, I found the solution. My father will be sending you an e-mail from an address associated with the website releasing the content to be on Wikipedia. This whole navigation process of the page building tool is complicated. Can you please acknowledge this note and tell me what to do next?
Thanks, Peter Kpa-advisory ( talk) 21:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
My username is Kpa-advisory
@ Kpa-advisory: see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. But please note that even if there were no legal obstacles, such material is probably not suitable for Wikipedia for other reasons: you shouldn't source a page about a person form his website ( WP:AUTOBIO). Also, this is the wrong forum for your query; this page is for disucssing how to improve the help page at: Help:Using talk pages – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, it is not yet possible to edit Wikipedia talk pages without writing markup code. There was a project called WP:Flow that was supposed to make talk pages more user-friendly, but it was canceled last year. Will it someday be possible to edit talk pages using VisualEditor instead? Jarble ( talk) 19:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to replace the indentation section with a shorter explanation. I think indentation is better explained at Wikipedia:indentation than it is here. Moreover, I believe a shorter explanation is much less intimidating to new editors (who are the primary target of this page). I propose an explanation similar to that of fr.wiki or Wikipedia: the missing manual. It would look like this:
Would anyone object? Atón ( talk) 09:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe wrote Counting colons, when there are more than four or five, and remembering how many colons when the preceding post is more than three lines, is hard [1] in reply to my question as to why it is hard to get wp:string right when editing from a 'phone.
This may explain why they and many other users mis-string, with I think increasing regularity.
Do our guidelines need a tweak? This problem can be predicted to snowball with time, IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please clearly compare, & contrast
Wikipedia:Talk_page pages with
Wikipedia:Teahouse discussions of Wikipedia topics. The descriptions of both are complex, and perhaps confusing, as I have been rebuked for using the Talk tab to discuss & suggest changes to a topic, but without reference or links to any specific comparison & distinction between the appropriate use of each. The basis that I understand for using the Wikipedia:
Teahouse is that some (?all) reviewers / maintainers, find it easier to scan recent additions to a single page rather than Talk throughout Wikipedia. If so, perhaps that explanation should be added/linked to both pages & the Talk page template.
Wikidity (
talk)
19:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I was blocked. I was not intentionally trying to break rules. Please restore me back. I am still learning. Ytteb1015 ( talk) 21:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)ytteb1015 Ytteb1015 ( talk) 21:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move. Will request implementation at WP:RM/TR ( non-admin closure) TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Help:Using talk pages →
Help:Talk pages – Unnecesarily specific title name. The article are about talk pages and how to use them. By being in the
"Help" namespace, the verb-fication of the title is retundant. I can fix it myself in a few days if no-one objects.(should have read
the rules)
Gaioa (
talk)
15:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
These pages contain information intended to help use Wikipedia or its software.Help use. The fact that it is in the Help namespace already suggests that it is about using something. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 19:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Mandruss: Numbering editors in the order in which they are displayed on the page ( diff) avoids the issue of what should happen when another editor wants to reply to the second comment. I don't particularly care what the guideline says because it is pretty irrelevant for how things are done—I have tried to explain indenting to a few good editors who simply don't get it and never will. However, the example should tackle the tricky issue. If I were making the tricky comment, I would insert it as shown in the example if the comments were fairly brief and it wasn't a highly active page like ANI. If those conditions did not apply, I would probably add my new reply at the bottom with some reference to the comment I was replying to. These considerations are probably a bit advanced for the guideline, but an example with everything numbered in ascending order makes it appear that the comments were added in that order, despite the timestamps which currently show Editor 3 as being after Editor 4 which is a bit strange. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
We got this largest talk page in here. I been trying using talkpage helps to classifications some talk page options to ensure a solution in this section. Been trying get some veteran Wikipedia editors to review a solution to finalized a talk page section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusriderSF2015 ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The " Indentation" section is inadequate because it does not explain how to create a response that contains more than one paragraph. Apparently leaving a blank line is verboten, but the help page does not say what to do instead. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I must report abuse of 'editorial' power by this admin User:Mys_721tx on zh.wikipedia.org. It is most uncalled for to IP ban me for translating MAJOR 'lack' in Chinese language site. I am a profession en-> zh translator, former editor on poetry magazine as well.
IF you have a bit of time plus a slight curiosity, do look into my talk page there and see how incomprehensible the situation is, that admin thinks by translating his grandma's laundry list, I must meet certain 'standards' to use wikipedia resources now? I'd appreciate as much help as I can get, since I can't make contact with _any_ sane translators on my team during the time of 'ban'. This admin's personal 'dislike' of my output there is a grave loss to US all.
Regards
LairdUnlimited 03:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Allthingsgo zh:User_talk:Allthingsgo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthingsgo ( talk • contribs)
{{ helpme}} The Findhorn Foundation is my first edit. I did not to previous edits, that is, Rand corporation or Lowla Branz. Therefore, I think someone has hacked my account. I will change my password. Is there anything else I should do? Snicholls ( talk) 07:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This Wikipedia:Talk_pages_consultation_2019 may be of interest to followers of this page. II | ( t - c) 05:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
only a question, for protect every Talk page from vandalism or else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalininos ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Endemol_Shine_Group
Hi Guys,
On the Endemol Shine Group wikipedia page, I have suggested that Endemol being merged into the Endemol Shine Group page as Endemol merged into Endemol Shine Group. It makes sense to have the history of the company incorporated rather than having two separate pages I think, because people might get confused about the company. I thought about this when I was searching for who makes the TV show Black Mirror? But I was unsure whether it was Endemol or Endemol Shine Group. Oli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojmarson ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects.
Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun; as such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2. All users are invited to express their views. Individual WikiProjects, user groups and other communities may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 ( talk) 17:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey hey good People of Earth :) Hey how's it going? This chat topic that I'm going to broach is meta (ie. it's talk about Talk!) So I figured it probably belongs on a Wikipedia official page about (what are) Talk pages, **on the very Talk section** of that said page... That being said, I know Wikipedia is all about complete transparency, and history of edits, and contributions for all of its users, registered users, but isn't it a little strange that somebody can Watch (or set to watch) anyone else's User:Talk page? I forgot that I had a Friend's set to Watch for future replies to my own conversations, and so I'm continually seeing what people write on his page over time. So... along those lines, is there a setting or feature where you can see a list of who's watching which pages, Wikipedia-wide? Or at least for ones own Talk page, is a user able to see a list of Wiki users who are watching it? I think that would be an interesting feature, suggestion, software enhancement! - What are your thoughts? Vid2vid ( talk) 00:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I've created an example of a talk page with inline explanations in my sandbox. It combines several elements in the same place, which are explained in more detail with individual examples on the help page itself. Would it make sense to add such an example to a subpage of Help:Talk pages? — andrybak ( talk) 09:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
There is currently no error message when a new discussion post is rejected on the mobile site. I was talking about something shown in a YouTube video and added a link to the video, but it was rejected since it was the shortened youtu.be version. There was no indication that it was rejected, so it wasn’t until I went to check back later that I realized the post was rejected and I had to type it over from scratch. LoyalSage ( talk) 14:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Any improvements you recommend? Draft:Rima_Nakabayashi 52-whalien ( talk) 08:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:THREAD says clearly how to reply to a single comment but gives no advice for replying to multiple comments at once. Suppose two people reply to a comment and one wants to reply to both replies at once, with a remark that inherently addresses both. Could WP:THREAD include guidance as to how one should do that? — 2d37 ( talk) 09:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
replyto}}
to show who you are replying to (as I did at the start of this post), and {{
tq}}
(as in a remark that inherently addresses both) to make it clear which question, sentence or phrase you are posting about. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Help:Talk pages#Indentation says Comments are indented using one or more initial colons (:), each colon representing one level of indentation.
However,
MOS:INDENTGAP says However, this markup alone is missing the required
<dt>
(term) element of a description list, to which the <dd>
(description/definition) pertains. As can be seen by inspecting the code sent to the browser, this results in broken HTML (i.e. it fails
validation
[1]). The result is that assistive technology, such as screen readers, will announce a description list that does not exist, which is confusing for any visitor unused to Wikipedia's broken markup. This is not ideal for accessibility,
semantics, or
reuse, but is currently commonly used, despite the problems it causes for users of screen readers.
The <dl>...</dl>
issue is addressed in Phabricator ticket
T6521, but shoildn't the two prescriptions be brought into alignment pending a resolution?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
15:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
References
dl
is missing a required child element."
Thanks for your clarification on pages of cited materials appearing in the body of the article. I was surprised when I saw them. I thought they were due to some mistakes made by me. Greatman012 ( talk) 14:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Currently, the convention is to have the comments in a Talk section from first in time to last. That is clearly best. Another convention, though, is to have the sections themselves, the topics, also in chronological order. Should this be changed to reverse chronological order?
I can't see a good argument for chronological order, except maybe in the Archives, but people mainly get to the Archives by Search anyway, not be browsing.
The argument for reverse chronological order is that most of the action is in the newest Section, and putting it first means less scrolling to start a new Section, to read one, or to edit one.
Should the convention be changed? This would involve changing the Help page here to tell people to add Sections at the Top, not the Bottom, and changing the software so that if the software does it automatically, it goes to top and not bottom. editeur24 ( talk) 21:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It could even be half-done without changing the software at all, just by changing the convention.You seem to be saying we should change they way we're all supposed to do it, but not change the software that works based on the supposed convention. That can't be right. And your
The current order is no better than random, so making some of the pages...leads me to conclude your proposal isn't really serious at all. — JohnFromPinckney ( talk / edits) 19:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Some types of discussions use top-level bulleted lists, e.g.
requested moves. How should I post a top-level comment with multiple lines? Should I use :
for subsequent lines, or *
? If I want to include indented bullet points in my top-level comment, where should my signature go — at the end of the last bullet point, on a new unindented line, or somewhere else?
Rublov (
talk)
16:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I have inserted this new section about the new Reply Tool at Help:Talk pages.
This will be an opt-out feature which all desktop users will soon be seeing, following its successful trial in beta. Its rollout on English Wikipedia was initially intended for 7th February 2022. However, after discussions at WP:VPP, that rollout has been held back a short while so that as many users as possible are made aware of this feature, and for brief explanatory notes to be provided on Help pages and for users of other help fora to be made aware. Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, but I see that blank talk pages are now defaulting to a message that says "Start a discussion about" (e.g. Talk:Guillaume Hoorickx). Where was that decided? It seems problematic, in that talk pages discussions should be about the article rather than the subject. This is clarified in the subsequent message, but it still seems misleading to new editors. St Anselm ( talk) 18:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Were the Talk pages once called Discussion pages? If so, why was the name changed? John Link ( talk) 23:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know it is the right place to ask but someone accused me of having two accounts although I only have one account. How can I explain to him/her about this situation? RenRen070193 ( talk) 03:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Does the "Reply Tool" actually reply to the indicated user???. CapnZapp ( talk) 12:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I am having issues trying to reply to talk pages. I won't let me type a message. I have to use the edit article button instead. Cwater1 ( talk) 00:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, quick question: if I post to someone’s talk page, but then immediately revert that post, does the user still get a notification? — HTGS ( talk) 05:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel like there are a few things said in this video that do not apply anymore. MisterN1C022 ( talk) 22:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
When exactly was the Talk page added to Wikipedia? I couldn't find the answer on the article. Iamnotflour ( talk) 02:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
{{TALKPAGENAME}}
was
added to the software in version 1.7, which dates
from 2006. Pinging
Graham87 (
talk ·
contribs), who specialises in Wikipedia's history. --
John of Reading (
talk)
08:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:TPNEW says to start a new topic by clicking on the "New section" link. Experiment suggests the following occur with various skins.
Is the above correct? Can something simple be done so WP:TPNEW gives less puzzling advice? Johnuniq ( talk) 01:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
It would be a good thing if this was posted at the top of all article talk pages. Editors need to be reminded of its principles. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)