I don't disagree, but it doesn't particularly bother me one way or the other. Talk page get filled up with a lot of forum-ish comments, and it's a waste of energy to start removing them all (most particularly comments that are more than a decade old). If you find it particularly annoying, remove it using an edit summary reflecting your reasoning rather than using a dishonest/misleading edit summary. An edit summary such as "Remove per
WP:NOTFORUM", for example, would be entirely acceptable and reflects your rationale honestly. If any other editors believe it to be relevant, they can reinstate it per
WP:BRD... but I can't see anyone doing so as it doesn't enhance discussion, as you've pointed out. My main reason for wanting to retain it is that it's an indicator of the fact that the article hasn't had any serious work done on it (ever), and there's been no serious discussion of the contents. I just feel that it's a prompt for active editors to take a look at what looks like an abandoned article.
In the meantime, I've tagged the actual article for having multiple problems, and have left a corresponding message regarding the tags on the talk page. I might get back to it when I have some energy, or it may alert other editors (such as yourself) to improve it. Cheers! --
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
06:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't disagree, but it doesn't particularly bother me one way or the other. Talk page get filled up with a lot of forum-ish comments, and it's a waste of energy to start removing them all (most particularly comments that are more than a decade old). If you find it particularly annoying, remove it using an edit summary reflecting your reasoning rather than using a dishonest/misleading edit summary. An edit summary such as "Remove per
WP:NOTFORUM", for example, would be entirely acceptable and reflects your rationale honestly. If any other editors believe it to be relevant, they can reinstate it per
WP:BRD... but I can't see anyone doing so as it doesn't enhance discussion, as you've pointed out. My main reason for wanting to retain it is that it's an indicator of the fact that the article hasn't had any serious work done on it (ever), and there's been no serious discussion of the contents. I just feel that it's a prompt for active editors to take a look at what looks like an abandoned article.
In the meantime, I've tagged the actual article for having multiple problems, and have left a corresponding message regarding the tags on the talk page. I might get back to it when I have some energy, or it may alert other editors (such as yourself) to improve it. Cheers! --
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
06:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply