This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Talk page guidelines page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
If you are new to editing Wikipedia, you might be on the wrong page. This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. |
A dispute arose about an article talk page a little more than two weeks ago. One editor had made some long comments on the article talk page that another editor thought were using Wikipedia as a forum, how-to guide information, and original research. The other editor deleted the material to which they objected. The editor who had posted the material objected to the deletions, and wanted to discuss the deletions at DRN. I initially did not want to discuss the deletions at DRN, because it is for article conduct disputes, not for disputes about other types of pages. I reviewed the talk page guidelines, and concluded that they are unclear as to when material should be deleted from talk pages, as opposed either to collapsing or to archiving. A complaint was made to WP:ANI, but that was closed as a content dispute, outside the scope of WP:ANI. I agreed to conduct moderated discussion under a rule that I wrote for the purpose of discussing talk page edits. The moderated discussion failed, for reasons that I will not go into here. However, my takeaway from reading the talk page guidelines several times is that they are vague about removal of material from article talk pages. In my opinion, the collapsing or archival of material on article talk pages should normally be recommended as an alternative to deletion. If that is the intent, and I have inferred that some editors agree with me, the policy should say that.
Also, since the deletion of material from talk pages is likely to be controversial, it would be helpful if the guidelines said something about the resolution of disputes caused by any sort of removal of talk page material. Where can talk page removals be discussed? Controversial edits to article pages are discussed on article talk pages. Where are controversial edits to talk pages discussed? Is the lack of an obvious answer to that question a reason to minimize the editing of talk pages?
Should the guidelines on removal of material from article talk pages be clarified? If they are already to clear to other editors, but not to me, can someone explain what is missing in my reading of them (as opposed to being missing in the writing of them)? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself.
The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.
"Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above)"to
"Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or unacceptable material (as described above)"with the changes in bold. Changing from "prohibited" to "unacceptable" matches the language used in the section WP:TPNO, and linking to it would aid editors in understanding what is being referenced. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 03:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Any time there is uncertainty about whether something should be deleted or not, it should instead be collapsed with {{ collapse top}} along with a title bar indicating a justification (NOTFORUM, etc.). Outright removal should be by consensus, not by the act of a single editor, except for an admin acting in their capacity as admin. (I can see an argument for someone acting in their capacity as an experienced moderator neutrally applying moderated discussion rules as well, but that should be discussed further.) Even if a large amount of content is involved ( as in this 26kb removal) collapsing should be the first remedy. Once something is collapsed, it ceases to encumber the flow (and the scrolling) and can always be deleted later; and if the collapse was unwarranted, it can easily be undone, no matter how many intervening edits have happened, whereas undoing a removal after intervening edits could be so complex as to make it unlikely anyone would attempt it. This favors the unilateral remover, and simply cannot stand. Mathglot ( talk) 04:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. Emphasis added. I routinely delete article talk page comments that contain no plausible discussion of how to improve the article, with an edit summary of WP:NOTAFORUM. In my view, "vaguely relevant" is far too low a threshold. Comments like " "I am the biggest fan of celebrity X" or "I think celebrity Y is overrated" or "Hey celebrity Z, I am going through hard times and I am hoping that you can help me pay my hospital bills" are all "vaguely relevant" but still should be deleted on sight. Collapsing this kind of stuff just encourages curious editors to uncollapse and waste their precious time. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines.(my emphasis) Paradoctor ( talk) 07:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.That is an incomplete answer to your OP, but does seem to cover at least a portion of it. If you "ran the zoo", what changes would you make to the guideline? I'm a little concerned that this is enough of an edge case that we can't write rules around it without an unacceptably high amount of instruction creep, but I believe I could be convinced of a change if others felt strongly otherwise. VQuakr ( talk) 07:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I have a few comments. First, I will restate that I think that the editor who deleted a post because it was a non-starter was acting in good faith but was seriously mistaken. There was a consensus against the proposal, and a consensus should be recorded. A second editor might offer the same idea, and seeing that it was already considered and dismissed may avoid spending more time on a non-starter.
Second, the talk page guideline on removal of off-topic material is interpreted differently by different editors, some of whom do not think it is unclear, but have different ideas as to what it means. That is even worse than a guideline that is widely recognized as unclear.
Third, in my opinion, the guideline should state clearly that collapsing or moving off-topic material is usually preferred over deletion, unless the material is harmful, inappropriate, or nonsensical. The guideline doesn't say that at present. Some change to the guideline to state that collapsing or moving is normally preferred over deletion is the main change to the guidelines.
Fourth, the situation in which ArbCom authorized deletion of talk page posts appears to be when the topic area is subject to Extended-Confirmed Protection as a contentious topic, but where the page has not been protected to enforce the restriction. That was not the case in the original example.
Fifth, where should disputes over the deletion, moving, or collapsing of talk page posts be discussed? Disputes over the editing of the article are discussed on the talk page. Where can disputes over the editing of a talk page be discussed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
where should disputes over the deletion, moving, or collapsing of talk page posts be discussed?
Collapsing or moving off-topic material is usually preferred over deletion, unless the material is harmful, inappropriate, or nonsensical.I don't disagree with it, but I'm also not convinced that it's really needed. Between saying only that it is "usually preferred", and by not defining "inappropriate", it becomes a pretty minimal guidance. I'm concerned that it would lead to more arguments over how to apply it, than to clarity over the right thing to do. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The following is not yet an RFC, but in the near future, either this or something similar will be an RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that we add after the three bullet points Collapse, Move, and Delete, three more bullet points:
Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
deletion is likely to prove controversialNot my experience. Sure, occasionally I get pushback, but in most cases where I delete stuff, it sticks the first time. Paradoctor ( talk) 15:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to ... the article).The last point is also covered by WP:NOTFORUM. Certes ( talk) 23:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I won't go look up what AGM isThat's the problem. Had you looked at the context the comment was made in, you'd have seen that that "AGP" is used there as shorthand for "autogynephilia". Or you could simply have looked it up at AGP.
We are here trying to clarify the rules for talk pages, not trying to clarify what AGP isAfter all, this is what the present discussion is about, a proposal to change the guideline.
Since everybody went silent here, I had no other optiton but to make my proposal. I might be unavailable in the next few days, so I might not be able to reply. I have tried to make the proposed additions succinct and clear. Feel free to comment, because that makes it easier to improve the proposal.
I propose a change to the last paragraph before "Examples of appropriately editing others' comments" list, ( here).
The paragraph should be expanded as follows:
Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.
Z80Spectrum ( talk) 08:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages
Removing another editor's comments should be done with caution, and only when clearly justified by site guidelines.
only when clearly justified by site guidelines" formulation (and similar ones) is that it is not precise, and it is often misunderstood, IMO.
not a native english speakerNeither am I. ;) Don't sweat it, you're not alone in here.
at this point I'm unable to track all the changesTake your time.
general conversation about the article's subject. So citing WP:OR as reason, while technically incorrect, is absolutely in keeping with the spirit of the talk page rules.
use of original research in a talk page ... by definition isn't related to article content, which I disagree with. WP:OR might or might not be off-topic when present on talk pages. I repeat again that WP:OR states: This policy does not apply to talk pages.
Off-topic posts: Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution
The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.Z80Spectrum ( talk) 22:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
There are at least two widely different interpretations of WP:TPO. Therefore, the WP:TPO is significantly ambiguous at this moment.
The purpose of this opinion poll is to serve as a guidance for improving the text of WP:TPO
This opinion poll is not official. The purpose of the poll is to find out what is the prevailing interpretation. You are welcome to comment and to post your thoughts on further improvements of WP:TPO.
In the discussion so far, a few different interpretations have been put forward.
IMPORTANT note: all votes towards Option VX also count towards Option VV.
The poll question is: what should WP:TPO suggest as valid justifications for deleting talk page material?
- Z80Spectrum ( talk) 15:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC); edited 2024-02-21T17:01:22
and by user:Paradoctor in this post, because it misrepresents what I said. NOTFORUM refers to WP:TALK#TOPIC, and the latter is part of TPG. I also explained how OR text, when on talk, violates TPG.
if anyone has already replied [...] deleted text should be marked with.<del>...</del>
[...] add a new timestamp, e.g.,<ins>; edited ~~~~~</ins>
, using five tildes, after the original timestamp at the end of your post
if we don't have summaries of all positionsFormulating options is fine. Just don't ascribe them to users. It's not necessary for the poll. Paradoctor ( talk) 18:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion titled Deletions of (article) talk page material at WP:ANI related to this discussion.
In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
Z80Spectrum ( talk) 06:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This talk page shows a warning to editors:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
These restrictions are not mentioned in the talk page guidelines. According to the rules described here, are new editors strictly forbidden to discuss this topic on any talk page, except when making edit requests? Jarble ( talk) 19:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
except for making edit requests. Any newcomers can edit the article and discuss edits this way. It's basically an alternative to WP:Pending changes. Paradoctor ( talk) 20:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
edit requests and the subsequent discussion of their edit requests. It's still not clear to me whether that is intended to be excluded or not. Paradoctor ( talk) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. There is an ArbCom discussion with one of the main topics being ip talk page posts. It is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. Your input is welcome. This notice is placed to attract objective input (whether in favor or against) of uninvolved editors related to the interest of the talk page guideline. It is not canvassing,
In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect § Deprecation of redirecting the talk page of a mainspace redirect. Nickps ( talk) 21:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This section has no guidance on how much to archive, or the method of archiving (date vs size). The proposed new second paragraph Special:Diff/1221314215/1222242991:
-- Green C 01:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
What normally happens is people enable one of the archive bots, which are based on date, and the bot clears most or the whole page.This is the system working as intended; basically the WP:EDITCONSENSUS on the various pages. Also note, setting up archiving is discussed in detail at WP:ARCHIVE and the examples there use "minthreadsleft=5", so that's likely the most common configuration, not clearing the whole page. Dan Bloch ( talk) 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
More than once, an IP (anon) editor has posted my name in a discussion without giving a reason for doing so. The latest:
@ Talk:You (TV series).
Am I being solicited to participate in the discussion? Am I only supposed to know there is a discussion? Whatever ... posting an editor's name, and only the name, as a "comment" or "reply" should be deletable without a
WP:TPO justification.
Pyxis Solitary
(yak yak). Ol' homo. 02:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Talk page guidelines page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
If you are new to editing Wikipedia, you might be on the wrong page. This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. |
A dispute arose about an article talk page a little more than two weeks ago. One editor had made some long comments on the article talk page that another editor thought were using Wikipedia as a forum, how-to guide information, and original research. The other editor deleted the material to which they objected. The editor who had posted the material objected to the deletions, and wanted to discuss the deletions at DRN. I initially did not want to discuss the deletions at DRN, because it is for article conduct disputes, not for disputes about other types of pages. I reviewed the talk page guidelines, and concluded that they are unclear as to when material should be deleted from talk pages, as opposed either to collapsing or to archiving. A complaint was made to WP:ANI, but that was closed as a content dispute, outside the scope of WP:ANI. I agreed to conduct moderated discussion under a rule that I wrote for the purpose of discussing talk page edits. The moderated discussion failed, for reasons that I will not go into here. However, my takeaway from reading the talk page guidelines several times is that they are vague about removal of material from article talk pages. In my opinion, the collapsing or archival of material on article talk pages should normally be recommended as an alternative to deletion. If that is the intent, and I have inferred that some editors agree with me, the policy should say that.
Also, since the deletion of material from talk pages is likely to be controversial, it would be helpful if the guidelines said something about the resolution of disputes caused by any sort of removal of talk page material. Where can talk page removals be discussed? Controversial edits to article pages are discussed on article talk pages. Where are controversial edits to talk pages discussed? Is the lack of an obvious answer to that question a reason to minimize the editing of talk pages?
Should the guidelines on removal of material from article talk pages be clarified? If they are already to clear to other editors, but not to me, can someone explain what is missing in my reading of them (as opposed to being missing in the writing of them)? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself.
The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.
"Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above)"to
"Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or unacceptable material (as described above)"with the changes in bold. Changing from "prohibited" to "unacceptable" matches the language used in the section WP:TPNO, and linking to it would aid editors in understanding what is being referenced. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 03:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Any time there is uncertainty about whether something should be deleted or not, it should instead be collapsed with {{ collapse top}} along with a title bar indicating a justification (NOTFORUM, etc.). Outright removal should be by consensus, not by the act of a single editor, except for an admin acting in their capacity as admin. (I can see an argument for someone acting in their capacity as an experienced moderator neutrally applying moderated discussion rules as well, but that should be discussed further.) Even if a large amount of content is involved ( as in this 26kb removal) collapsing should be the first remedy. Once something is collapsed, it ceases to encumber the flow (and the scrolling) and can always be deleted later; and if the collapse was unwarranted, it can easily be undone, no matter how many intervening edits have happened, whereas undoing a removal after intervening edits could be so complex as to make it unlikely anyone would attempt it. This favors the unilateral remover, and simply cannot stand. Mathglot ( talk) 04:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. Emphasis added. I routinely delete article talk page comments that contain no plausible discussion of how to improve the article, with an edit summary of WP:NOTAFORUM. In my view, "vaguely relevant" is far too low a threshold. Comments like " "I am the biggest fan of celebrity X" or "I think celebrity Y is overrated" or "Hey celebrity Z, I am going through hard times and I am hoping that you can help me pay my hospital bills" are all "vaguely relevant" but still should be deleted on sight. Collapsing this kind of stuff just encourages curious editors to uncollapse and waste their precious time. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines.(my emphasis) Paradoctor ( talk) 07:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.That is an incomplete answer to your OP, but does seem to cover at least a portion of it. If you "ran the zoo", what changes would you make to the guideline? I'm a little concerned that this is enough of an edge case that we can't write rules around it without an unacceptably high amount of instruction creep, but I believe I could be convinced of a change if others felt strongly otherwise. VQuakr ( talk) 07:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I have a few comments. First, I will restate that I think that the editor who deleted a post because it was a non-starter was acting in good faith but was seriously mistaken. There was a consensus against the proposal, and a consensus should be recorded. A second editor might offer the same idea, and seeing that it was already considered and dismissed may avoid spending more time on a non-starter.
Second, the talk page guideline on removal of off-topic material is interpreted differently by different editors, some of whom do not think it is unclear, but have different ideas as to what it means. That is even worse than a guideline that is widely recognized as unclear.
Third, in my opinion, the guideline should state clearly that collapsing or moving off-topic material is usually preferred over deletion, unless the material is harmful, inappropriate, or nonsensical. The guideline doesn't say that at present. Some change to the guideline to state that collapsing or moving is normally preferred over deletion is the main change to the guidelines.
Fourth, the situation in which ArbCom authorized deletion of talk page posts appears to be when the topic area is subject to Extended-Confirmed Protection as a contentious topic, but where the page has not been protected to enforce the restriction. That was not the case in the original example.
Fifth, where should disputes over the deletion, moving, or collapsing of talk page posts be discussed? Disputes over the editing of the article are discussed on the talk page. Where can disputes over the editing of a talk page be discussed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
where should disputes over the deletion, moving, or collapsing of talk page posts be discussed?
Collapsing or moving off-topic material is usually preferred over deletion, unless the material is harmful, inappropriate, or nonsensical.I don't disagree with it, but I'm also not convinced that it's really needed. Between saying only that it is "usually preferred", and by not defining "inappropriate", it becomes a pretty minimal guidance. I'm concerned that it would lead to more arguments over how to apply it, than to clarity over the right thing to do. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The following is not yet an RFC, but in the near future, either this or something similar will be an RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that we add after the three bullet points Collapse, Move, and Delete, three more bullet points:
Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
deletion is likely to prove controversialNot my experience. Sure, occasionally I get pushback, but in most cases where I delete stuff, it sticks the first time. Paradoctor ( talk) 15:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to ... the article).The last point is also covered by WP:NOTFORUM. Certes ( talk) 23:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I won't go look up what AGM isThat's the problem. Had you looked at the context the comment was made in, you'd have seen that that "AGP" is used there as shorthand for "autogynephilia". Or you could simply have looked it up at AGP.
We are here trying to clarify the rules for talk pages, not trying to clarify what AGP isAfter all, this is what the present discussion is about, a proposal to change the guideline.
Since everybody went silent here, I had no other optiton but to make my proposal. I might be unavailable in the next few days, so I might not be able to reply. I have tried to make the proposed additions succinct and clear. Feel free to comment, because that makes it easier to improve the proposal.
I propose a change to the last paragraph before "Examples of appropriately editing others' comments" list, ( here).
The paragraph should be expanded as follows:
Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.
Z80Spectrum ( talk) 08:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages
Removing another editor's comments should be done with caution, and only when clearly justified by site guidelines.
only when clearly justified by site guidelines" formulation (and similar ones) is that it is not precise, and it is often misunderstood, IMO.
not a native english speakerNeither am I. ;) Don't sweat it, you're not alone in here.
at this point I'm unable to track all the changesTake your time.
general conversation about the article's subject. So citing WP:OR as reason, while technically incorrect, is absolutely in keeping with the spirit of the talk page rules.
use of original research in a talk page ... by definition isn't related to article content, which I disagree with. WP:OR might or might not be off-topic when present on talk pages. I repeat again that WP:OR states: This policy does not apply to talk pages.
Off-topic posts: Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution
The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.Z80Spectrum ( talk) 22:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
There are at least two widely different interpretations of WP:TPO. Therefore, the WP:TPO is significantly ambiguous at this moment.
The purpose of this opinion poll is to serve as a guidance for improving the text of WP:TPO
This opinion poll is not official. The purpose of the poll is to find out what is the prevailing interpretation. You are welcome to comment and to post your thoughts on further improvements of WP:TPO.
In the discussion so far, a few different interpretations have been put forward.
IMPORTANT note: all votes towards Option VX also count towards Option VV.
The poll question is: what should WP:TPO suggest as valid justifications for deleting talk page material?
- Z80Spectrum ( talk) 15:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC); edited 2024-02-21T17:01:22
and by user:Paradoctor in this post, because it misrepresents what I said. NOTFORUM refers to WP:TALK#TOPIC, and the latter is part of TPG. I also explained how OR text, when on talk, violates TPG.
if anyone has already replied [...] deleted text should be marked with.<del>...</del>
[...] add a new timestamp, e.g.,<ins>; edited ~~~~~</ins>
, using five tildes, after the original timestamp at the end of your post
if we don't have summaries of all positionsFormulating options is fine. Just don't ascribe them to users. It's not necessary for the poll. Paradoctor ( talk) 18:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion titled Deletions of (article) talk page material at WP:ANI related to this discussion.
In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
Z80Spectrum ( talk) 06:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
This talk page shows a warning to editors:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
These restrictions are not mentioned in the talk page guidelines. According to the rules described here, are new editors strictly forbidden to discuss this topic on any talk page, except when making edit requests? Jarble ( talk) 19:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
except for making edit requests. Any newcomers can edit the article and discuss edits this way. It's basically an alternative to WP:Pending changes. Paradoctor ( talk) 20:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
edit requests and the subsequent discussion of their edit requests. It's still not clear to me whether that is intended to be excluded or not. Paradoctor ( talk) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi. There is an ArbCom discussion with one of the main topics being ip talk page posts. It is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. Your input is welcome. This notice is placed to attract objective input (whether in favor or against) of uninvolved editors related to the interest of the talk page guideline. It is not canvassing,
In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect § Deprecation of redirecting the talk page of a mainspace redirect. Nickps ( talk) 21:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This section has no guidance on how much to archive, or the method of archiving (date vs size). The proposed new second paragraph Special:Diff/1221314215/1222242991:
-- Green C 01:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
What normally happens is people enable one of the archive bots, which are based on date, and the bot clears most or the whole page.This is the system working as intended; basically the WP:EDITCONSENSUS on the various pages. Also note, setting up archiving is discussed in detail at WP:ARCHIVE and the examples there use "minthreadsleft=5", so that's likely the most common configuration, not clearing the whole page. Dan Bloch ( talk) 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
More than once, an IP (anon) editor has posted my name in a discussion without giving a reason for doing so. The latest:
@ Talk:You (TV series).
Am I being solicited to participate in the discussion? Am I only supposed to know there is a discussion? Whatever ... posting an editor's name, and only the name, as a "comment" or "reply" should be deletable without a
WP:TPO justification.
Pyxis Solitary
(yak yak). Ol' homo. 02:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)