![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I need help with interpretation of this guideline. More precisely New topics and headings on talk pages. According to this part of guideline we should keep headings neutral and:
The guideline explains that someone can "attack other users by naming them in the heading" because it "is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period"
There is a discussion here about this guideline and its interpretation.
I have a simple question: Is it allowed to name other users in the headings if you want to discuss their edits?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The following was added by Youreallycan/Off2riorob with no discussion: "External links to locations that are not considered WP:RS's should not be posted on article talkpages and can be removed by other users. Do not express personal opinions about living subjects on article talkpages, such personal posts can be deleted and users posting such personal opinions can have their editing privileges removed." I think it is not entirely coherent for one thing, it seems to me that the talkpage is exactly where one would want to discuss whether a particular link meets WP:RS and whether the information in question is appropriate and relevant to the article. Anyway the question is whether this passage should be added. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
What is there to object to this? Do not express personal opinions about living subjects on article talkpages, such personal posts can be deleted and users posting such personal opinions can have their editing privileges removed." You really can 22:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It's incorrect that a link which might not count as an RS should never be placed on a talk page. There are a number of reasons for doing so, including discussing whether the website is RS. A non-RS link may have useful background information or context, etc. If it doesn't violate BLP or NPA, then non-RS links shouldn't be a problem on talk pages. Will Beback talk 04:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
In addition to changing "since" to "as" (which I trust is pretty much noncontroversial) I strengthened the bar about using editors' names in section titles, especially where the section title could be viewed as critical of the editor. I trust this will not be found too controversial. Collect ( talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
New section needs to be clarified -- where should the discussion to have a centralized discussion take place? Nobody Ent 23:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to use profanity on the WP Talk page?Fairly OddParents Freak ( Fairlyoddparents1234) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Recently my comments on a talk page were interrupted without the use of an interrupt template. Understanding that these were probably in good faith, I've let the user know that I disapprove of my comments being interrupted like that (frankly, it wasn't that long). However, user seems to disagree.
Do users have a right to interrupt someone else's comments even that someone else disagrees? VR talk 00:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Please note that there is an ongoing Rfc which could affect the contents of this guideline. The Rfc is located at:
Template talk:Non-administrator observation#What to do with this template.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
16:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
If the talk page is not suppose to be a forum for controversial views about an article, then every article needs a third tab beyond talk named "Discuss". Until such a thing exists, there is no place to voice arguments as to why or why not something should be included in an article *but* on the talk page, and for that reason, I would argue that these rules be expanded to be more liberal and open to all voices without stringent censure. The talk page is 'behind' the main article page, out of view... its not like talk page edits appear or interfere with the main article. 71.226.11.248 ( talk) 23:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
There was a new post to Talk:Norton AntiVirus, the section avscntsk DLL file 001 Norton source code. I've collapsed it since it was so long (and nowikied, since it messed with the collapse template), but should this section be deleted? I don't really understand what it is. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Occasionally you see animated GIFs used on talk pages. Good-faith example: User talk:Planetary Chaos Redux#My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season. Like many who have Asperger's syndrome, I have trouble reading a page when there is something flashing or moving on it. Those who have epilepsy can be severely impacted (see Photosensitive epilepsy#Web design) and many people find such images to be annoying. Should we have something in the guideline discouraging the practice? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the above wording at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages could be improved on and amplified by the following, as at [7]:
FROM:
TO:
(Added italics in the TO Edit indicate changes or additions.)
The proposed change of the first sentence is intended to make it clearer and more specific and self-contained, to make it easier to observe that guideline, to empower other editors frustrated by obscure or off-point headings.
The last sentence of the TO Edit would enable readers to see more easily the connection between a Talk page discussion and a (possible) article Edit that results from it. I can cite instances where it may look like an effort to obscure the connection of the 2, which may make for lively but unproductive discussion or WP:reverts, or to discourage discussion for the lack of transparency. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 19:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Matters related to this article are discussed in the essay WP:Avoiding talk-page disruption and an RfC has been posted requesting comments here. Please provide your advice. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Swearing is endemic to our species but displays a distinct lack of vocabulary and sensitivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddielaval ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Anyone help me through the practices and policies here?
I assisting someone, Jari-Matti Latvala to be precise with their web presence. I run the Facebook fan club, manage the official web site, look after the Twitter account and so forth.
On his Wiki entry I noted that the URL is simply wrong, pointing to a dot FI URL that has never been used, when it should be the ubiquitous dot com, so I have tried to change that. I get a message about deadlines and how I shouldn't change a URL - what, even when it's plain wrong?
Second, I added a link to the Twitter feed and to the fan club in the sincere view that these are simply useful additions to his Wiki entry. They've been removed and "conflict of interest" has been cited.
Yes I am relatively new to WIki edits so any real world experience and guidance would be appreciated
Thanks
Andrew Barriskell ( talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (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.
Request community input re archiving talk pages. Two issues: (1) guideline as to when a talk page should be archived; and (2) whether editors involved in a debate should be able to increase archiving speed without consensus. The debates started separately at Talk:Circumcision#Tactical_Archiving and Talk:Pogrom#Archiving. About half of the involved editors in the discussion are from a similar editing background (Israel/Palestine). We desperately need feedback from the wider community here.
On point (1), the guideline before 2010 was 32KB in edit boxes / 50 topics. Following amendments [8] [9] by User:SteveMcCluskey and User:Jayjg and this discussion it was changed to 50KB in a page / 10 main topics. It was disputed in this discussion and here [10]. The odd thing is that Steve's change in 2010 was supposed to be "rewriting it to recommend a larger file size". So it seems that the whole issue stems from an accidental change of the word edit boxes to in a page. Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This guidline appears to need an update. "Large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. Also loading time becomes an issue for slow internet connections. It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 50 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." 50K is not much these days. The internet is quicker. Just the disclaimers at the top of some article talk pages exceed that amount. An article I watch has a talk page size of 120K with an archive bot set to every 4 days and I'm constantly searching the archives. I propose raising this guidline to 2 megs or 200K. Garycompugeek ( talk) 15:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
While there is a need to limit the size of talk pages, 50K is a very small number. I'm not sure it makes sense in the modern world, since 50K is even smaller than many articles. For example this project page is about 108K of source including all the markup stuff (depends on the skin). Is there a reason for limiting talk pages to a fraction of the size that articles themselves have? Surely the priority is the other way around? Anyway, what is the actual evidence? WP:Article size mentions rendering problems over 400K in some obsolete browsers. Do mobile devices apart from antiques have trouble with that size? Zero talk 13:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not support a change to 200k. 50k is big as it is, and we have to take into account that Wikipedia is used by people on cell phones and also in developing countries with poor Internet access. It strikes me as exceptionally myopic to change this guideline used Wikipedia-wide for 3,000,000+ pages without considering the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation in general. And really, is it so difficult to use the archive search function? Zad68 ( talk) 16:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be as widely compatible as is possible. I don't see any compelling reason to make using the site more difficult for smartphone or dial up users, even if they are a minority, beyond an apparent personal distaste for looking in the archives. We should keep this guideline at 50K, as it is. - MrOllie ( talk) 18:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I see many editors arguing that >50K is or is not a problem but I don't see an explanation as to why a <50K limit is a problem. Can someone clarify that for me? -- Kvng ( talk) 19:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
50K?? This powers-of-ten madness must stop! All right-thinking people set limits in powers-of-two increments. The next step above 32768 (32K) is 65536 (64K), the way Gottfried Leibniz and George Boole intended!: :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I have begun an RFC above, and set out the history as clearly as I can. Grateful for comments from all. Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
As this is a proposal to change a Wikipedia-wide recommendation, I have listed this discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Zad68 ( talk) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the point is valid on both sides. The limits are too small, but people do need them to be pretty small for smartphone/slow-connection use. I propose that the limit be increased to 75kB, and that future increases should be in small increments. - Jorgath ( talk) ( contribs) 18:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
These days most active talk pages are auto-archived by bots such as MiszaBot. The existing wording should be deleted and replaced with a recommendation to use auto-archiving bots and configure them with values appropriate to the traffic of the page. Kaldari ( talk) 03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Please note that this is only a guideline. If the Wikipedia foundation that maintains the servers actually cared about this it would be a policy maintained by clerks. Why should it be kept at teeny tiny (50k) to serve the lowest common denominator of old computers, dial ups and slow phones? Garycompugeek ( talk) 18:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning that this was never an agreed guideline - it used to be 32KB in edit boxes, which assuming 5 sections on a page is 160KB for the whole talk page. The move down to 50KB for the whole talk page seems to have been accidental (see diffs in intro to this RFC) and never found consensus. Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, the issue with increasing the recommended page size, as noted above, is that
The latter point is perhaps the most crucial. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
As for the first issue, having interfaced with Wikipedia using a slow connection during most of my six years here, I can say with some confidence that page size is still very much a legitimate concern. It isn't the only determining factor in accessibility, but it definitely is a factor, and I suspect that anyone with a slow connection who has tried to stay abreast of some of the major RfCs we've had over the years would back me up on that. I think it's incumbent upon us to try to be as accessible as possible to as many users as possible. Casually choosing to leave an undetermined number of contributors out in the cold simply to make things more convenient for the most fortunate (read: wealthy, urban) users would be deeply unfair and not in the best interests of the project. Having said that, I doubt that 75KB would be a prohibitively large hurdle—it wouldn't have been for me—but I'd love to see some actual data on user connections to be more certain. Do we have any?
As for number of sections on a page, I don't really see that it makes much difference. I've never edited using a device with a tiny screen, though, so I might well be wrong about that. Rivertorch ( talk) 05:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Recently, [11] a user attempted to justify removing other editor's comments on an article talk page by quoiting "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal" from the How to use article talk pages section of this page. I referred him to WP:TPOC, but I wonder, should we clarify the "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal" wording? If not, perhaps explaining the policy on removing other editor's comments here so it can be referred to later would be useful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I was the editor in question, and I apologize for being anal. I have seen much abuse of talk pages and BLP ones have stricter rules. I don't know if the policy can even be made more strict to include all statements made by any editor that does not add to the BLP article improvement. Certain unsourced statements about BLPs can be removed now and it is usually done by the OP after someone asks politely. I believe in articles about a BLP all content in dispute should be left out until consensus or policy is met. We should remember that there is no deadline like a newspaper and we don't sell copies based on 'dirty laundry' like tabloids. I do agree that notable things should be included, but in balance of text count, NPOV, etc.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Irrelevant comments need to be subject to removal. I think we all agree that talk pages are not meant to be web forums, right? Maybe it's just that I have different articles on my watchlist compared to some of the editors here, but it can be a serious problem on some articles and with some editors. There are editors, few in number I agree, who only want to argue about the subject of the articles and whose posts are not at all aimed at changing the article. Why would we allow that? And it's a fact that once this is allowed to stay, others see it and join in with similar irrelevant comments. And if a comment is actually relevant and is removed, we can deal with that. If someone asks an irrelevant question if we can point the editor to a suitable reference desk and make it clear that such questions should be asked there, then we can leave that as an example. But irrelevant discussions are not helpful and can cause problems (especially when as so often on some articles they are just nationalistic pov arguments, etc). Dougweller ( talk) 08:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From the "good practices" section:
- Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate.
Proposed replacement:
Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate.
Changelog: Spelled out full name of wp: namespace, replaced underlines in link with spaces, moved the * so all related content is under the same bullet point. The source code is a little messier this way, but I don't know of any better solution. 81.231.245.214 ( talk) 11:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The advice not to place {{ Talk header}} on a blank talkpage does not seem to match usage, nor is supportive of readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures. The Foundation is keen to encourage more users to get involved in feedback on articles, so we should be encouraging people to use the talkpage and we should give advice on how to use the talkpage. The assumption behind advising not to place {{ Talk header}} is that everyone who wishes to communicate knows how to, and that a lack of existing discussion implies nobody wishes to communicate. I think that assumption is misplaced. A lack of discussion may be down to a lack of encouragement and advice on how to communicate, and the Talk header template would provide both that advice and encouragement. I think it should be down to individual judgement as to which talkpages would benefit from using this template. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
subst:WelcomeMenu}}
do this.{{
talk header}}
on every article talk/template talk/etc. talk page. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's about lifting a restriction that is inappropriate, and is not applied to any other talkpage template. My point above, is that if an article is created which may be of interest to inexperienced users (something topical and in the media), and an editor feels that inexperienced users may want to comment on the article, and may want guidance as to how to do that, then they should be allowed to put the template on the talkpage without waiting for another template to be placed first, or for an experienced Wikipedian to start a discussion. Is there any valid reason why {{ Talk header}} is disallowed, but a WikiProject banner - for example - is allowed? The argument that it turns a red link blue applies to every talkpage template. There is a lack of logic, common-sense and consistency here, as well as a degree of prejudice against new or inexperienced users. I'm not saying "everywhere", I'm saying where an editor feels it is appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
talk header}}
gives information to newbies, this is true: but it is of absolutely no use to experienced editors. We should all know how to add to existing threads; start new threads; sign posts; follow
WP:CIVIL etc. However, looking elsewhere it's clear that some of these are ignored even by users with 5+ years and/or 33,000+ edits, so {{
talk header}}
or no, these people will continue to ignore what it says in that box.Should {{ hat}}s be signed? Nobody Ent 14:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This sounds like if an editor has a long contribution you can just interrupt it with a comment or a section title. That can't be right. Does it mean that or does it mean a thread? Aren't you supposed to just quote the relevant part? And if an editor keeps interrupting every one of one's points with their replies, I assume one can object and put back one's contiguous comment and just copy their whole reply which quotes everything said above. That's what I do anyway. Having to do it to same editor twice in two days and now see the policy is a bit unclear. CarolMooreDC 18:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Link freely, the article says, but apparently we now have a spam filter that blocks external links in discussion pages. This is really unhelpful as I’m trying to assemble useful citations, not all of which necessarily needs to be referenced in the article, but can be good to have ‘on the record’ nonetheless. Can we still do this or not? ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 05:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been trying to remove an off-topic section at Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 for a few days, but the thread creator seems to think it isn't off-topic. The topic being discussed is unrelated to the topic of the aritcle, WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0. My hat and close were deleted, and the topic thread initiator seems to think it is on-topic. -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 06:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Should comments that have been made after a long period of time (as well as one that are placed in the middle of the conversation) be removed at all? For instance this comment was made a year after the original comment and was placed in the middle of the conversation. -- Shadow ( talk) 07:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
How should talk page discussions of topic banned editors be weighed when considering article content? Is the answer different for editors who are indefinitely topic banned? After a topic ban expires, should the past contributions be considered in a different light? aprock ( talk) 15:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The current advice on off-topic comments is to hide them. People resort to hiding too soon, and some people even delete comments, even if they are somewhat on-topic.
This leads to a vicious circle of people arriving at the article, not finding any comments and thus adding their own... some other people explaining that this has already been dealt with, and then all these comments get hidden. The next person to pass by sees nothing discussed yet, and thus starts a new heading on the very same topic, ad infinum. This becomes very frustrating for all involved.
If people become too quick with the trigger finger and outright delete comments, it gets interesting indeed. At Paul Revere's Ride , people who missed seeing their comments back decided to assume the worst. Next day, there were headlines in all the papers to the tune of: "Sarah Palin supporters edit warring on Wikipedia, and censoring all comers".
With such a history, I would suggest at least rescinding the recommendation, or better, make it a blockable offence. ;-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Music Writing Texture Text Compositions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.30.29 ( talk) 17:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The section Avoid Excessive Emphasis, also known as Wikipedia:SHOUTING states that the use of ALL CAPITALS is considered shouting and should be avoided, restating a rule that predates Wikipedia and has been accepted by the Internet community, since the Internet was the ARPANET. It says to use bolding and italics sparingly. So far, so good. However, on one article talk page, a user has used a different method of shouting, and that is to introduce a Wiki command to increase the font size by three levels. I would like to add a mention that increasing the font size on a talk page is considered shouting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
<big>...</big>
and <font size="value">...</font>
are pure HTML markup, whereas <span style="font-size:value">...</span>
is HTML markup which achieves its effect by using CSS for the actual styling. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
06:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I just logged on and it took me several minutes to notice the little (2) next to my name indicating I had two new messages. After six years I am kind of used the screaming orange bar popping up on every page I look at until I check my talk page. Was this just a bug or did we do away with the orange bar? Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I've seen this at many articles. Typically this is where there there is an ongoing tussle at the article (which typically is where the article covers a topic where there are opposing factions in the real world). And some person or faction embeds their arguments, or material supporting their quest, or material which will help their efforts in talk as "FAQ's" in the talk page. Of course they do it in a way that subtly does this. This puts it in a place that has prominence and doesn't get archived, and has the appearance of authority.
I believe that something should be added to this guideline to reduce that type of activity. Something like: "Except for standardized customary notices, contested or controversial material should not be put into the talk page header." Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's review, shall we? User:North8000 says that he has seen many articles where a person or faction embeds their POV in a FAQ, thus avoiding archiving and giving it prominence and the appearance of authority. He wants the guideline to say that contested or controversial material should not be put into talk page headers. User:Rivertorch says that most FAQs reflect consensus, that contested or controversial material should be allowed in FAQs, and that our answer to editors who are unhappy with opposing POVs in FAQs should be "that's life and that's Wikipedia."
It appears to me that this can easily be settled by looking at specific examples provided by North8000 and evaluating whether the FAQ reflects consensus, as Rivertorch claims, or whether there is a clear bias towards one POV. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the one that brought it to mind / a catalyst was a recent/current friendly debate about one at wp:rs. In this case, being on a guideline page, where it has/had the higher impact of giving the impression that it was policy. But I've overall drawn from observing a continuous stream of them over time. North8000 ( talk) 11:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I have thought about a "2 birds with one stone" solution. On one hand, we have the problem that FAQ's tend to embed/enshrine one person's or one side's preferred "take" on something. On the other hand, important decisions or pseudo-decisions at an article seem to be quickly forgotten when there is not some note on them. Not that they can't change, but awareness of them is good. What about something that (on contested items) just notes the topic of them and then links to them. Maybe up to 6, weighted by an informal combination of the scope of participation, clearness of any decision and how recent it was. That way those retains some visibility/prominence but people can look for themselves instead of reading one person's embedded/enshrined opinion on it. North8000 ( talk) 11:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I am still looking for a good argument against adding some variation of "Except for standardized customary notices, contested or controversial material should not be put into the talk page header." to the talk page guidelines. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I think that we just saw an example of it considered to be more entrenched by at least some. Johnuniq sort of just said that you need an RFC to change it. North8000 ( talk) 10:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Guy's suggestion amounts to "Let's ban all FAQs". It would also appear to ban customized headers, like the ones directed at newbies to tell them that they're on the wrong page, because those are not "standardized", and anything could be "controversial". I once had a lengthy dispute with someone who thought that the WP:1.0 team assessment of "his" article was an insult. I oppose it. At minimum it fails to communicate what it intends to ban; at best, it adds another needless layer of bureaucracy.
North's problem does not appear to emanate from an article. It appears to be about lingering dissatisfaction with the FAQ at WT:V and WT:RS, which can be read at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/FAQ. I suggest reading it. If you've spent any significant time at RSN, you will recognize those questions as being frequently asked ones. North's problem, if you're curious, is with the item that says you may not remove verifiable, well-sourced material solely on the grounds that you personally know that the sources are wrong. He has failed on WT:RS to convince anyone that this is actually wrong. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
We say "Do not praise in headings: You might wish to commend a particular edit, but this could be seen in a different light by someone who disagrees with the edit."
That's a very strong command, and it is pretty silly. Don't say " Congratulations on Featured Article of The Day" in a heading? That's "praise" and it's in a heading. So why exactly shouldn't we say things like that?
As for it being "consistent", that list already fails to be consistent, since the four items run "Do not", "Do not", "Don't" and "Never use". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I looked through and couldn't find anything about editors who create 4 or 5 brand new main sections, separated by other new threads from the original section; and this is in the same week - ie during current discussions. This to keep discussing the same topic, long after it's clear no one agrees with them. I put the first four together, now there's # 5. Did I miss the guideline here or is it somewhere else. Very frustrating. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a conflict between WP:NOSTRIKE, which "bans" strikethough text for accessibility reasons, and WP:REDACT (here), which encourages it in redacting comments which have been replied to. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#WP:NOSTRIKE and WP:REDACT for a centralized discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone isn't aware of this already, Wikipedia:Flow is software that is planned to replace our current way of editing talk pages. I would encourage you all to take a look and possibly comment on the project. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Editors are permitted to archive or remove content from "their own talk pages", but I am wondering what is counted as one's own talk page in the case of someone with a dynamic IP address, such as myself. It happens from time to time that someone will post a comment to me on a talk page for whatever IP address my ISP happens to assign me this time around that results in a discussion. That discussion can go on for a while, meaning that sometimes when I come back to reply again, my IP address is different. In such cases, I always make an effort to make it clear that I am the same editor so as to avoid confusion about the different address. Now if I had a static IP address or were editing from an account, there would be no issue of whether or not I could archive or remove discussions. It seems to me that if a discussion were about editing I was involved in and the conversation were directed to me and I participated in it that I should be able to count the talk page as "my own" for the purposes of archiving or removing those discussions, even after my ISP has assigned me a new IP address. Does this seem correct? 99.192.90.228 ( talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there an actual page on which this is a problem? NE Ent 21:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Registered accounts are kind of like residences with long term leases. You gotta follow some rules the landlord sets, but you can pretty much decorate however you want. Dynamic IP address accounts are like hotel rooms -- you're there for awhile and then you. If you check into a room and find the maid didn't clean up very well you should be able to take out the trash. So if the current user of an IP address wants to dump a message, what exactly is the harm?? NE Ent 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
1) Any edit to any page, including an IP's talk page, that would qualify for WP:Revision deletion can be removed by anyone at any time. WP:ATTACKs, WP:OUTINGs and other egregious WP:BLP violations (editors are usually living people) are the most likely to show up on an IP talk page, but it is possible that WP:COPYVIO and other revision-deletable material may also show up.
2) The same applies to edits which would qualify for speedy deletion, such as a test edit that inadvertently (WP:AGF) corrupted or removed content from a page. Because no "second eye" is needed to edit (vs. deleting a CSD-tagged page), extreme care should be given when judging whether "speedy delete" really applies.
The point being: An IP editor has at least the same rights to edit other people's content on "his" current or former page as a logged-in editor has to edit the same content on the same page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, or where, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large.
I've noticed many editors talking to each other in languages other than English on User Talk pages, and done it in special circumstances myself. Question: Is this wording above intended to raise User Talk pages to the same standard as article Talk pages in this regard? Has there been a previous discussion to apply the same standard? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, or where, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia article talk pages, and if possible also on ones own User Talk page. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large.
The words "No matter to whom you address a comment" have no meaning, as in consensus decision making all comments are directed to the group and never "to whom", and on user talk pages, the comments are solely directed "to whom" is the owner of that user talk page. Apteva ( talk) 18:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It is preferable to use English on all talk pages so comments may be comprehensible to the community. If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so but cannot, you should [omitted either] find a third party to translate or [omitted to] contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy.
The talk page guidelines say
Recently, a question came up on a noticeboard about whether the talk page guidelines prohibit collapsing of comments that violate the noticeboard guidelines but are not generally prohibited on talk pages. For example, arbcom does not allow comments about content disputes, DRN does not allow comments about user conduct, RSN doesn't allow comments that have nothing to do with reliable sources, the reference desk doesn't allow medical or legal questions, etc. Is collapsing of comments that violate the noticeboard guidelines allowed? If so, should this be made explicit in the policy, or would that just be unneeded instruction creep? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is a partial list of noticeboard sections where comments that violated the noticeboard guidelines were hatted or collapsed:
As far as I can tell, most of those collapsed comments would have been allowed on an article talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
If you are looking for opinions to see what consensus is, my opinion is that Project discussion pages that are managed by an active "management group" such as ARBCOM or an active WikiProject can have different guidelines than Wikipedia as a whole provided that those who "own/manage" those talk pages have arrived at their own consensus. However, such talk pages are still subject to Wikipedia's policies. When it comes to WP:OFFICE-managed and possibly WP:ARBCOM-managed project talk pages, I'm even willing to allow OFFICE and possibly ARBCOM to overrule Wikipedia policy in talk pages they manage if there is a clear legally-mandated (as per an explicit action by OFFICE's legal dept.) or non- or minimally-controversial reason to do so, as those groups arguably have the right to unilaterally change policy in exceptional circumstances (OFFICE's legal dept. obviously does, beyond that things are not as clear-cut). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Use of .7B.7Btalkpageheader.7D.7D.
A bit of background: WP:WikiProject Articles for creation uses a script (the WP:AFCH gadget in your preferences) to add {{ WikiProject Articles for creation}} and other talk-page headers to newly-"created" articles. The script also adds {{ talkpageheader}}, even though there is almost never an actual discussion yet. If memory serves, this was done at my suggestion in the mistaken (?) belief that this was the right thing to do.
The discussion I opened is to determine if we should keep things the way they are. I am in favor of doing just that. Please go to the WPAFC talk page above to participate in this discussion. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 17:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
An editor insists that there should be no spaces between subsequent comments left by editors and goes so far as to remove spaces that other editor intentionally insert. His reasoning is that it affects screen readers. Is this something that we should state outright here and enforce or should we state that this is not something that should be manipulated? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No. You were (almost certainly) told that processing time is not a consideration for editing. WP:LISTGAP specifies (my emphasis) "including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons - including talk page discussions)". The lack of understanding, or refusal to do so, is yours. Hint: which HTML element is used to mark up your comments? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance is not a policy.
It is unfortunate that we're (ab)using definition-list formatting to indent threads in discussion. Eventually WP:Flow will render this talk page kludge obsolete. In between now and then, I suppose that we have to balance the needs of visually impaired editors with the needs of editors who have trouble seeing whose comments are where in the edit window. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
"As far as I can tell, JAWS doesn't read out the definition lists in Wikipedia discussions unless there's another list in the mix (whether it be ordered or unordered). However, NVDA always reads them out. Therefore it's still a good idea to include the talk page exception here."didn't you understand? -- RexxS ( talk) 05:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"We discourage authors from using lists purely as a means of indenting text."You will note that Techniques for WCAG 2.0 explains that
" Authors should test techniques against the user agents and assistive technologies currently available to their users."- the onus is on authors to test whether the html they produce meets accessibility needs. The is no presumption that WCAG can anticipate every possible issue that causes an accessibility problem. Here you have seen that a potential issue has been identified (a blank line causing the closure of one list and the start of another); a user giving a practical example of the problem for the visually impaired (NVDA reading out all of the closing/opening of the lists); and a guideline to help editors avoid the problem (don't put blank lines between indented talk page discussions}. Yet for reasons unknown, you seem to want to make life harder for disabled visitors by preventing the guideline being made explicit. It's time you swallowed your pride and did the right thing - it's easy for those who are not affected by disability issues to stand in the way of improving Wikipedia for those who are. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:LISTGAP is part of the Manual of Style, and is a guideline, not a policy, so let's be accurate. The text before the edit war was:
"Do not separate list items, including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons) or an unordered list, by leaving blank lines between them, since this causes MediaWiki to end one list and start a new one."
and the disputed text was:
"Do not separate list items, including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons - including talk page discussions) or an unordered list, by leaving blank lines between them, since this causes MediaWiki to end one list and start a new one."
So, which of the edit-warriors wants to justify their reverts of the second version on the grounds of "a change of policy"? Who is going to state here that the addition of the words "including talk page discussions" is a change of policy and a not a simple clarification? It is indisputable that Mediawiki software uses colons to produce definition lists and it is equally indisputable that every editor involved in this sorry fiasco use colons to indent their comments in talk page discussions. Those words are not a change of anything, but an unarguable statement of fact. It is an inconvenient truth that we have a flawed mechanism to format our talk page discussions; it is equally true that LISTGAP applies to those discussions. What possible rationale can exist for not making that clear to editors to whom LISTGAP applies? -- RexxS ( talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
" ... NVDA always reads them out."It's in plain English and gives you the proof there's a problem with at least one common screen reader. Yet you want still more evidence. What's next? Are you going to blame NVDA and tell everybody using it to buy JAWS at $1,000 just so that you can carry on with your peccadilloes? It really is a problem. We do need to make it clearly part of these guidelines, and you need to stop obstructing that very process. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"As far as I can tell, JAWS doesn't read out the definition lists in Wikipedia discussions unless there's another list in the mix (whether it be ordered or unordered). However, NVDA always reads them out. Therefore it's still a good idea to include the talk page exception here."There's your diff. Did he indicate that or didn't he? This is the second time I've shown you. Aren't you getting sick of playing games of IDIDNTHEARTHAT yet? -- RexxS ( talk) 17:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This all seems pretty heated for such an issue that is so unimportant to the average editor.
Walter, could you please tell me how exactly you'll personally be harmed by formatting comments in whatever way the resident experts on this issue say is supposed to be best—or at least by not reverting them if they clean things up later? And if you're not actually harmed by it, then why are you wasting so much time fighting with them about it? Don't we have something more important to do than to argue over whether they're right on some obscure detail of HTML accessibility rules? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This does indeed seem pretty heated for such an issue that is so unimportant to the average editor, but it becomes important when Pigsonthewing (AKA "Andy's edits") starts removing lines that other editors purposely put in [21] and edit warring to get his way [22] [23] [24] [25] while quoting as justification a "policy" that he himself added less than two weeks previously. [26]
Now RexxS is an interesting case. If you look past the bluster and personal attacks, he does seem to be attempting to back up his position with at least one bit of data, which is a post by Graham87 [27], who uses the JAWS screen reader almost exclusively and uses NVDA as a backup when JAWS crashes [28]. Graham87 reports that JAWS has no problem with added lines in talk page discussions, but NVDA does. I am not sure what version Graham87 is running or how it is configured (more on that later).
My extensive research cannot find any evidence of any NVDA or JAWS version produced later than 2005 or 2006 that does not read definition lists as if they were just text. If you look at This chart, you will see that this is around the time when Wikipedia started becoming popular. During my research, I ran into multiple websites like this, which found that "NVDA'S behaviour here is interesting in that it just reads the [definition list] items without announcing that it's a list or that the terms and definitions have any relation. The content is just read in a linear fashion."
Another gotcha is that the in most screen readers the above behavior can be changed in the configuration. I suspect that somewhere along the llne the "treat definition lists like linear text" went from defaulting to off to defaulting to on.
Finally, I find that thë following linë of argumënt: "Sufficë it to stay that nobody knows what fraction of rëadërs usë particular assistivë tëchnologiës, nor what thë absolutë numbërs arë - it's not rëcordëd in sërvër logs as browsër typë is...What givës you thë right to spëak for rëadërs who arë affëctëd? - As far as you know it could bë thousands of rëadërs a month affëctëd" [29] to bë an intërësting usë of logic. I could, for ëxamplë, claim that somë usërs ëxpëriëncë an ëlëctric shock whënëvër wë usë an "ë" without an umlaut, and thus wë must allways usë umlautëd ë's. If I wërë to thën go on to arguë that nobody knows how many rëadërs gët shockëd, and to point out that as far as you know it could bë thousands of rëadërs a month affëctëd, thë fact that I cannot comë up with a singlë ëxamplë of a rëal përson who is affëctëd is ëxtrëmëly rëlëvant. Thërë is a hugë diffërëncë bëtwëën "wë don't know how many arë affëctëd" and "wë havë zëro ëxamplës of anyonë bëing affëctëd. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems that there are no actual statistics for this and so we are not going to update the guidelines to recommend the list formatting suggested above. As a result, editors should not be imposing their personal preference on other editors as well. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Recently there was an addition to the page encouraging "keep on topic". It was rightly reversed. However, I got to thinking and perhaps we should discuss that addition. It seems logical, as an addition to a thread that does get off-topic is either a)new comments ignore that errant comment. b)someone makes a comment (sometimes not so nice) telling the editor that the comment is off-topic. c) someone turns the new comment and any responses to it into a new thread because it was off-topic and distracting to the current discussion. Such a small courtesy addition would not be instruction creep as it simply codifies existing Wikipedia ettiquette as a preemptive requirement. It wont solve the problem, but it may encourage new editors to not switch topic in the middle of a discussion. Camelbinky ( talk) 20:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Flow is a planned improvement to the way MediaWiki software handles article talk pages. There is an RfC about how to configure Flow regarding editing other people's article talk page comments. Your input would be welcome. The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Flow#Request for Comment on editing other user's comments with Flow. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
See User:Anomie/talklink. I've tested in Vector, and really like it.
Talkpages that are empty or only have templates on them, have orange Talk tab labels. Talkpages that are redirects have green Talk tab labels (changeable in your css). So good and useful. (Someone asked a related question in VPmisc, which reminded me of this script, and I thought it worth mentioning here). – Quiddity ( talk) 19:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the best way to refer to sources in talk page discussions? For example, if I want to discuss a famous essay I can't use a <ref> tag [2] since there is no reflist. I could use an ordered list like this (see citation 1) but I'm wondering if there is a better way.
Thanks Andrew 327 16:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
reflist-talk|close=1}}
. The |close=1
ensures the references don't get mixed up with any other reflist on the page. But, if you just want to talk about the citation, then use it without the <ref>
tags. --
Gadget850
talk
16:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)@ Guy Macon:, What other ways are you referring to in your edit summary that is not covered in "Discussions on article talk pages should be limited to discussion of relevant reliable sources, the facts and opinions of those sources, and the proper representation of reliable sources (including in matters of WP:Weight and WP:Style)." Seems that covers everything from punctuation to organization to proper summary to identfying sources and citing, etc. I have to run but will check in in several hours. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Under WP:SHOUTING, (redirect to this project page), I think where it says "The user of markup to increase the font size" should have a modification. Consider raising the font size of "increase the font size" to show what it means. 76.226.121.62 ( talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
how long does hydrocodone stay in your system?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.129.251 ( talk) 15:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
In light of a recent edit and it's reversion, I added hatnotes to two sections and retitled "Good Practices" to "Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration" to clarify that the guidelines are primarily for collaboration pages, while emphasizing that it is still a good idea to apply them to user talk pages when it makes sense to do so. Diff. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 15:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not think the exhortation to use English on talk pages ought to apply to user talk pages (and I strongly doubt that, when it was written, whoever wrote it was really thinking about user talk pages anyway). I understand why contributions on article talk pages should be in English to the extent possible. But user talk pages are often used to facilitate communication between a small number of editors at a time (often just two). I see no reason they should have to do so in English, if they prefer to do so in another language. -- Trovatore ( talk) 02:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Two points. First, I think we can probably agree that talk page discussions in various spaces other than article space should be in English. This page, for instance, isn't an article talk page; it's a Wikipedia talk page (i.e., in project space). There are also template talk, category talk, portal talk, and so on, and discussions in those places should be in English as well. Secondly, let's consider the word "preferable". While I can't imagine any reason to forbid the use of other languages on user talk pages (and I'd strongly oppose such a restriction), the guideline merely suggests it's preferable that English be used, and I don't see a problem with that. User talk pages are public, just like other talk pages, and in general it's a good thing for as many editors as possible to be able to read and understand them. Rivertorch ( talk) 04:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
At this section, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments, the guidelines say:
Looking through many talk pages, I most often see <s> and </s> for struck-through text. I don't think I've ever see <del> and </del>. Can I make this change to note this? I hesitate to edit WP guidelines. Thanks for your comments. Liz Read! Talk! 09:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
[30] You say my edit did not reflect "existing practice."
Due to mine preassuming too many things, some of the following may actually be different than existing practice, but I think other assumptions are uncontested (common sense assumptions)
Which of the following implicit assumptions do not reflect "existing practice?"
Thanks DontClickMeName talk contributions 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one should create a talk page in order to place a {{WikiProject}} template on it; or should it be created for certain WikiProjects but not for others (for example WikiProject Disambiguation and/or WikiProject Anthroponymy)? Or perhaps this matter should rather be explain at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide? -- -- -- 03:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one may or should fix red links in others' comments when they link to a page that never existed under that name, but which does exist under a different name or different spelling? -- -- -- 03:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I am planning to did update the out-dated section "
Own comments" (see:
dif836) to directly recommend the widespread practice of self-correcting false comments, as soon as possible, rather than fear touching false or insulting text as if set-in-stone. The updated text would read:[revised 17 December]
DONE: The tactic of self-revising posted messages is so common that it can be seen daily in various talk-pages or noticeboards. Are there any other major issues which should be noted in that paragraph? - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:03, 16 December; revised 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
(Note: I would have searched to see if this has been discussed, but see not search box.)
I'm in a situation across a series of articles where issues are resolved after much discussion, visits to noticeboards, etc. and the same people bring the same issues up again a month or two later and the cycle starts again. (The articles even have community sanctions it's gotten so ridiculous.)
My question: I'm sure I've seen "Resolved" marks occassionally on talk page sections. Is there any way of making a template for use in such situations to at least agree upon a consensus and highlight it at the top of the section for future reference. It won't stop true new discussions, but might discourage same people from doing/writing same things over and over.
A Template that would say something like Resolution: Remove WP:OR interpretation of primary source quote, (see also WP:RSN discussion), Date . With a template something like {{resolved |outcome= txt| See also:= Noticeboard or other link|date=November 2013}} Maybe it even could become part of community sanctions. Thoughts??
User:Carolmooredc
talk
18:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Nearly this entire article has falsities, misrepresentation, and out right distortions. This is NOT a factual history of Copernicus, and this entire article needs much done to correct.. So much, that it should be deleted and redone.
98.156.73.236 ( talk) 08:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Heather
Why has it become common practice to remove (what some consider) offtopic posts from talkpages? The guidelines seems quite clear on this:
X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Is this wiki page or Home page of college, it looks like self-advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.195.195 ( talk) 07:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
Two things this guideline needs to do is:
We are to have a guideline requiring editors to answer questions addressed to them???? Really? I have just checked, and this was not posted on the first of April. So we are not to be allowed to decide what is worth answering and what isn't? Anyone who wants to can oblige me to write about something that I have no wish to write about? OK, but if we do, then let's rename the page from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to Wikipedia:Trolls' charter. Alternatively, we could just accept the fact that, in a voluntary project, where nobody is obliged to do anything, sometimes someone will choose not to answer a question that we would like them to answer. JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't there something here about not adding letter greetings like "Hello" and letter closings like "Sincerely yours," "Warm regards," and the like? I could have sworn there was. In WP discussions, these are distracting and a waste of space, and, worse, sarcastic, when following a particularly aggressive criticism during discussion, even if not intended to be sarcastic. Civility and good etiquette should be baked into how we discuss, not feigned in decorative text. Article talk pages aren't letter exchanges, so greetings and closings should be deprecated, IMHO. "Be concise" sort of covers it, but not explicitly enough, I think. "Sign your posts" and WP:SIG describes explicitly how to do it, but don't explicitly address greetings and closings. Discuss? -- Lexein ( talk) 14:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one should create a talk page in order to place a {{WikiProject}} template on it; or should it be created for certain WikiProjects but not for others (for example WikiProject Disambiguation and/or WikiProject Anthroponymy)? Or perhaps this matter should rather be explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide? -- -- -- 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one may or should fix red links in others' comments when they link to a page that never existed under that name, but which does exist under a different name or different spelling? -- -- -- 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Are we ok with edits like this or this? What can one do about it? CombatWombat42 ( talk) 18:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
-:::*Remember to not WP:NTTR, if you've got any common sense. - SchroCat ( talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If you read WP:NTTR and WP:TTR, you will find that the arguments at WP:TTR are far more persuasive. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
, and
Wikipedia's robots.txt file disallows /w/
.
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I need help with interpretation of this guideline. More precisely New topics and headings on talk pages. According to this part of guideline we should keep headings neutral and:
The guideline explains that someone can "attack other users by naming them in the heading" because it "is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period"
There is a discussion here about this guideline and its interpretation.
I have a simple question: Is it allowed to name other users in the headings if you want to discuss their edits?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 08:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The following was added by Youreallycan/Off2riorob with no discussion: "External links to locations that are not considered WP:RS's should not be posted on article talkpages and can be removed by other users. Do not express personal opinions about living subjects on article talkpages, such personal posts can be deleted and users posting such personal opinions can have their editing privileges removed." I think it is not entirely coherent for one thing, it seems to me that the talkpage is exactly where one would want to discuss whether a particular link meets WP:RS and whether the information in question is appropriate and relevant to the article. Anyway the question is whether this passage should be added. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
What is there to object to this? Do not express personal opinions about living subjects on article talkpages, such personal posts can be deleted and users posting such personal opinions can have their editing privileges removed." You really can 22:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It's incorrect that a link which might not count as an RS should never be placed on a talk page. There are a number of reasons for doing so, including discussing whether the website is RS. A non-RS link may have useful background information or context, etc. If it doesn't violate BLP or NPA, then non-RS links shouldn't be a problem on talk pages. Will Beback talk 04:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
In addition to changing "since" to "as" (which I trust is pretty much noncontroversial) I strengthened the bar about using editors' names in section titles, especially where the section title could be viewed as critical of the editor. I trust this will not be found too controversial. Collect ( talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
New section needs to be clarified -- where should the discussion to have a centralized discussion take place? Nobody Ent 23:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to use profanity on the WP Talk page?Fairly OddParents Freak ( Fairlyoddparents1234) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Recently my comments on a talk page were interrupted without the use of an interrupt template. Understanding that these were probably in good faith, I've let the user know that I disapprove of my comments being interrupted like that (frankly, it wasn't that long). However, user seems to disagree.
Do users have a right to interrupt someone else's comments even that someone else disagrees? VR talk 00:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Please note that there is an ongoing Rfc which could affect the contents of this guideline. The Rfc is located at:
Template talk:Non-administrator observation#What to do with this template.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
16:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
If the talk page is not suppose to be a forum for controversial views about an article, then every article needs a third tab beyond talk named "Discuss". Until such a thing exists, there is no place to voice arguments as to why or why not something should be included in an article *but* on the talk page, and for that reason, I would argue that these rules be expanded to be more liberal and open to all voices without stringent censure. The talk page is 'behind' the main article page, out of view... its not like talk page edits appear or interfere with the main article. 71.226.11.248 ( talk) 23:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
There was a new post to Talk:Norton AntiVirus, the section avscntsk DLL file 001 Norton source code. I've collapsed it since it was so long (and nowikied, since it messed with the collapse template), but should this section be deleted? I don't really understand what it is. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Occasionally you see animated GIFs used on talk pages. Good-faith example: User talk:Planetary Chaos Redux#My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season. Like many who have Asperger's syndrome, I have trouble reading a page when there is something flashing or moving on it. Those who have epilepsy can be severely impacted (see Photosensitive epilepsy#Web design) and many people find such images to be annoying. Should we have something in the guideline discouraging the practice? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the above wording at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages could be improved on and amplified by the following, as at [7]:
FROM:
TO:
(Added italics in the TO Edit indicate changes or additions.)
The proposed change of the first sentence is intended to make it clearer and more specific and self-contained, to make it easier to observe that guideline, to empower other editors frustrated by obscure or off-point headings.
The last sentence of the TO Edit would enable readers to see more easily the connection between a Talk page discussion and a (possible) article Edit that results from it. I can cite instances where it may look like an effort to obscure the connection of the 2, which may make for lively but unproductive discussion or WP:reverts, or to discourage discussion for the lack of transparency. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 19:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Matters related to this article are discussed in the essay WP:Avoiding talk-page disruption and an RfC has been posted requesting comments here. Please provide your advice. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Swearing is endemic to our species but displays a distinct lack of vocabulary and sensitivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddielaval ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
Anyone help me through the practices and policies here?
I assisting someone, Jari-Matti Latvala to be precise with their web presence. I run the Facebook fan club, manage the official web site, look after the Twitter account and so forth.
On his Wiki entry I noted that the URL is simply wrong, pointing to a dot FI URL that has never been used, when it should be the ubiquitous dot com, so I have tried to change that. I get a message about deadlines and how I shouldn't change a URL - what, even when it's plain wrong?
Second, I added a link to the Twitter feed and to the fan club in the sincere view that these are simply useful additions to his Wiki entry. They've been removed and "conflict of interest" has been cited.
Yes I am relatively new to WIki edits so any real world experience and guidance would be appreciated
Thanks
Andrew Barriskell ( talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (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.
Request community input re archiving talk pages. Two issues: (1) guideline as to when a talk page should be archived; and (2) whether editors involved in a debate should be able to increase archiving speed without consensus. The debates started separately at Talk:Circumcision#Tactical_Archiving and Talk:Pogrom#Archiving. About half of the involved editors in the discussion are from a similar editing background (Israel/Palestine). We desperately need feedback from the wider community here.
On point (1), the guideline before 2010 was 32KB in edit boxes / 50 topics. Following amendments [8] [9] by User:SteveMcCluskey and User:Jayjg and this discussion it was changed to 50KB in a page / 10 main topics. It was disputed in this discussion and here [10]. The odd thing is that Steve's change in 2010 was supposed to be "rewriting it to recommend a larger file size". So it seems that the whole issue stems from an accidental change of the word edit boxes to in a page. Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This guidline appears to need an update. "Large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. Also loading time becomes an issue for slow internet connections. It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 50 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." 50K is not much these days. The internet is quicker. Just the disclaimers at the top of some article talk pages exceed that amount. An article I watch has a talk page size of 120K with an archive bot set to every 4 days and I'm constantly searching the archives. I propose raising this guidline to 2 megs or 200K. Garycompugeek ( talk) 15:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
While there is a need to limit the size of talk pages, 50K is a very small number. I'm not sure it makes sense in the modern world, since 50K is even smaller than many articles. For example this project page is about 108K of source including all the markup stuff (depends on the skin). Is there a reason for limiting talk pages to a fraction of the size that articles themselves have? Surely the priority is the other way around? Anyway, what is the actual evidence? WP:Article size mentions rendering problems over 400K in some obsolete browsers. Do mobile devices apart from antiques have trouble with that size? Zero talk 13:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not support a change to 200k. 50k is big as it is, and we have to take into account that Wikipedia is used by people on cell phones and also in developing countries with poor Internet access. It strikes me as exceptionally myopic to change this guideline used Wikipedia-wide for 3,000,000+ pages without considering the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation in general. And really, is it so difficult to use the archive search function? Zad68 ( talk) 16:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be as widely compatible as is possible. I don't see any compelling reason to make using the site more difficult for smartphone or dial up users, even if they are a minority, beyond an apparent personal distaste for looking in the archives. We should keep this guideline at 50K, as it is. - MrOllie ( talk) 18:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I see many editors arguing that >50K is or is not a problem but I don't see an explanation as to why a <50K limit is a problem. Can someone clarify that for me? -- Kvng ( talk) 19:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
50K?? This powers-of-ten madness must stop! All right-thinking people set limits in powers-of-two increments. The next step above 32768 (32K) is 65536 (64K), the way Gottfried Leibniz and George Boole intended!: :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I have begun an RFC above, and set out the history as clearly as I can. Grateful for comments from all. Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
As this is a proposal to change a Wikipedia-wide recommendation, I have listed this discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Zad68 ( talk) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, the point is valid on both sides. The limits are too small, but people do need them to be pretty small for smartphone/slow-connection use. I propose that the limit be increased to 75kB, and that future increases should be in small increments. - Jorgath ( talk) ( contribs) 18:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
These days most active talk pages are auto-archived by bots such as MiszaBot. The existing wording should be deleted and replaced with a recommendation to use auto-archiving bots and configure them with values appropriate to the traffic of the page. Kaldari ( talk) 03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Please note that this is only a guideline. If the Wikipedia foundation that maintains the servers actually cared about this it would be a policy maintained by clerks. Why should it be kept at teeny tiny (50k) to serve the lowest common denominator of old computers, dial ups and slow phones? Garycompugeek ( talk) 18:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning that this was never an agreed guideline - it used to be 32KB in edit boxes, which assuming 5 sections on a page is 160KB for the whole talk page. The move down to 50KB for the whole talk page seems to have been accidental (see diffs in intro to this RFC) and never found consensus. Oncenawhile ( talk) 22:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, the issue with increasing the recommended page size, as noted above, is that
The latter point is perhaps the most crucial. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
As for the first issue, having interfaced with Wikipedia using a slow connection during most of my six years here, I can say with some confidence that page size is still very much a legitimate concern. It isn't the only determining factor in accessibility, but it definitely is a factor, and I suspect that anyone with a slow connection who has tried to stay abreast of some of the major RfCs we've had over the years would back me up on that. I think it's incumbent upon us to try to be as accessible as possible to as many users as possible. Casually choosing to leave an undetermined number of contributors out in the cold simply to make things more convenient for the most fortunate (read: wealthy, urban) users would be deeply unfair and not in the best interests of the project. Having said that, I doubt that 75KB would be a prohibitively large hurdle—it wouldn't have been for me—but I'd love to see some actual data on user connections to be more certain. Do we have any?
As for number of sections on a page, I don't really see that it makes much difference. I've never edited using a device with a tiny screen, though, so I might well be wrong about that. Rivertorch ( talk) 05:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Recently, [11] a user attempted to justify removing other editor's comments on an article talk page by quoiting "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal" from the How to use article talk pages section of this page. I referred him to WP:TPOC, but I wonder, should we clarify the "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal" wording? If not, perhaps explaining the policy on removing other editor's comments here so it can be referred to later would be useful. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I was the editor in question, and I apologize for being anal. I have seen much abuse of talk pages and BLP ones have stricter rules. I don't know if the policy can even be made more strict to include all statements made by any editor that does not add to the BLP article improvement. Certain unsourced statements about BLPs can be removed now and it is usually done by the OP after someone asks politely. I believe in articles about a BLP all content in dispute should be left out until consensus or policy is met. We should remember that there is no deadline like a newspaper and we don't sell copies based on 'dirty laundry' like tabloids. I do agree that notable things should be included, but in balance of text count, NPOV, etc.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Irrelevant comments need to be subject to removal. I think we all agree that talk pages are not meant to be web forums, right? Maybe it's just that I have different articles on my watchlist compared to some of the editors here, but it can be a serious problem on some articles and with some editors. There are editors, few in number I agree, who only want to argue about the subject of the articles and whose posts are not at all aimed at changing the article. Why would we allow that? And it's a fact that once this is allowed to stay, others see it and join in with similar irrelevant comments. And if a comment is actually relevant and is removed, we can deal with that. If someone asks an irrelevant question if we can point the editor to a suitable reference desk and make it clear that such questions should be asked there, then we can leave that as an example. But irrelevant discussions are not helpful and can cause problems (especially when as so often on some articles they are just nationalistic pov arguments, etc). Dougweller ( talk) 08:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From the "good practices" section:
- Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate.
Proposed replacement:
Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate.
Changelog: Spelled out full name of wp: namespace, replaced underlines in link with spaces, moved the * so all related content is under the same bullet point. The source code is a little messier this way, but I don't know of any better solution. 81.231.245.214 ( talk) 11:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The advice not to place {{ Talk header}} on a blank talkpage does not seem to match usage, nor is supportive of readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures. The Foundation is keen to encourage more users to get involved in feedback on articles, so we should be encouraging people to use the talkpage and we should give advice on how to use the talkpage. The assumption behind advising not to place {{ Talk header}} is that everyone who wishes to communicate knows how to, and that a lack of existing discussion implies nobody wishes to communicate. I think that assumption is misplaced. A lack of discussion may be down to a lack of encouragement and advice on how to communicate, and the Talk header template would provide both that advice and encouragement. I think it should be down to individual judgement as to which talkpages would benefit from using this template. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
subst:WelcomeMenu}}
do this.{{
talk header}}
on every article talk/template talk/etc. talk page. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's about lifting a restriction that is inappropriate, and is not applied to any other talkpage template. My point above, is that if an article is created which may be of interest to inexperienced users (something topical and in the media), and an editor feels that inexperienced users may want to comment on the article, and may want guidance as to how to do that, then they should be allowed to put the template on the talkpage without waiting for another template to be placed first, or for an experienced Wikipedian to start a discussion. Is there any valid reason why {{ Talk header}} is disallowed, but a WikiProject banner - for example - is allowed? The argument that it turns a red link blue applies to every talkpage template. There is a lack of logic, common-sense and consistency here, as well as a degree of prejudice against new or inexperienced users. I'm not saying "everywhere", I'm saying where an editor feels it is appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
talk header}}
gives information to newbies, this is true: but it is of absolutely no use to experienced editors. We should all know how to add to existing threads; start new threads; sign posts; follow
WP:CIVIL etc. However, looking elsewhere it's clear that some of these are ignored even by users with 5+ years and/or 33,000+ edits, so {{
talk header}}
or no, these people will continue to ignore what it says in that box.Should {{ hat}}s be signed? Nobody Ent 14:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This sounds like if an editor has a long contribution you can just interrupt it with a comment or a section title. That can't be right. Does it mean that or does it mean a thread? Aren't you supposed to just quote the relevant part? And if an editor keeps interrupting every one of one's points with their replies, I assume one can object and put back one's contiguous comment and just copy their whole reply which quotes everything said above. That's what I do anyway. Having to do it to same editor twice in two days and now see the policy is a bit unclear. CarolMooreDC 18:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Link freely, the article says, but apparently we now have a spam filter that blocks external links in discussion pages. This is really unhelpful as I’m trying to assemble useful citations, not all of which necessarily needs to be referenced in the article, but can be good to have ‘on the record’ nonetheless. Can we still do this or not? ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 05:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been trying to remove an off-topic section at Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 for a few days, but the thread creator seems to think it isn't off-topic. The topic being discussed is unrelated to the topic of the aritcle, WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0. My hat and close were deleted, and the topic thread initiator seems to think it is on-topic. -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 06:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Should comments that have been made after a long period of time (as well as one that are placed in the middle of the conversation) be removed at all? For instance this comment was made a year after the original comment and was placed in the middle of the conversation. -- Shadow ( talk) 07:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
How should talk page discussions of topic banned editors be weighed when considering article content? Is the answer different for editors who are indefinitely topic banned? After a topic ban expires, should the past contributions be considered in a different light? aprock ( talk) 15:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The current advice on off-topic comments is to hide them. People resort to hiding too soon, and some people even delete comments, even if they are somewhat on-topic.
This leads to a vicious circle of people arriving at the article, not finding any comments and thus adding their own... some other people explaining that this has already been dealt with, and then all these comments get hidden. The next person to pass by sees nothing discussed yet, and thus starts a new heading on the very same topic, ad infinum. This becomes very frustrating for all involved.
If people become too quick with the trigger finger and outright delete comments, it gets interesting indeed. At Paul Revere's Ride , people who missed seeing their comments back decided to assume the worst. Next day, there were headlines in all the papers to the tune of: "Sarah Palin supporters edit warring on Wikipedia, and censoring all comers".
With such a history, I would suggest at least rescinding the recommendation, or better, make it a blockable offence. ;-)
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 22:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Music Writing Texture Text Compositions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.30.29 ( talk) 17:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The section Avoid Excessive Emphasis, also known as Wikipedia:SHOUTING states that the use of ALL CAPITALS is considered shouting and should be avoided, restating a rule that predates Wikipedia and has been accepted by the Internet community, since the Internet was the ARPANET. It says to use bolding and italics sparingly. So far, so good. However, on one article talk page, a user has used a different method of shouting, and that is to introduce a Wiki command to increase the font size by three levels. I would like to add a mention that increasing the font size on a talk page is considered shouting. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
<big>...</big>
and <font size="value">...</font>
are pure HTML markup, whereas <span style="font-size:value">...</span>
is HTML markup which achieves its effect by using CSS for the actual styling. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
06:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I just logged on and it took me several minutes to notice the little (2) next to my name indicating I had two new messages. After six years I am kind of used the screaming orange bar popping up on every page I look at until I check my talk page. Was this just a bug or did we do away with the orange bar? Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I've seen this at many articles. Typically this is where there there is an ongoing tussle at the article (which typically is where the article covers a topic where there are opposing factions in the real world). And some person or faction embeds their arguments, or material supporting their quest, or material which will help their efforts in talk as "FAQ's" in the talk page. Of course they do it in a way that subtly does this. This puts it in a place that has prominence and doesn't get archived, and has the appearance of authority.
I believe that something should be added to this guideline to reduce that type of activity. Something like: "Except for standardized customary notices, contested or controversial material should not be put into the talk page header." Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's review, shall we? User:North8000 says that he has seen many articles where a person or faction embeds their POV in a FAQ, thus avoiding archiving and giving it prominence and the appearance of authority. He wants the guideline to say that contested or controversial material should not be put into talk page headers. User:Rivertorch says that most FAQs reflect consensus, that contested or controversial material should be allowed in FAQs, and that our answer to editors who are unhappy with opposing POVs in FAQs should be "that's life and that's Wikipedia."
It appears to me that this can easily be settled by looking at specific examples provided by North8000 and evaluating whether the FAQ reflects consensus, as Rivertorch claims, or whether there is a clear bias towards one POV. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the one that brought it to mind / a catalyst was a recent/current friendly debate about one at wp:rs. In this case, being on a guideline page, where it has/had the higher impact of giving the impression that it was policy. But I've overall drawn from observing a continuous stream of them over time. North8000 ( talk) 11:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I have thought about a "2 birds with one stone" solution. On one hand, we have the problem that FAQ's tend to embed/enshrine one person's or one side's preferred "take" on something. On the other hand, important decisions or pseudo-decisions at an article seem to be quickly forgotten when there is not some note on them. Not that they can't change, but awareness of them is good. What about something that (on contested items) just notes the topic of them and then links to them. Maybe up to 6, weighted by an informal combination of the scope of participation, clearness of any decision and how recent it was. That way those retains some visibility/prominence but people can look for themselves instead of reading one person's embedded/enshrined opinion on it. North8000 ( talk) 11:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I am still looking for a good argument against adding some variation of "Except for standardized customary notices, contested or controversial material should not be put into the talk page header." to the talk page guidelines. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I think that we just saw an example of it considered to be more entrenched by at least some. Johnuniq sort of just said that you need an RFC to change it. North8000 ( talk) 10:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Guy's suggestion amounts to "Let's ban all FAQs". It would also appear to ban customized headers, like the ones directed at newbies to tell them that they're on the wrong page, because those are not "standardized", and anything could be "controversial". I once had a lengthy dispute with someone who thought that the WP:1.0 team assessment of "his" article was an insult. I oppose it. At minimum it fails to communicate what it intends to ban; at best, it adds another needless layer of bureaucracy.
North's problem does not appear to emanate from an article. It appears to be about lingering dissatisfaction with the FAQ at WT:V and WT:RS, which can be read at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/FAQ. I suggest reading it. If you've spent any significant time at RSN, you will recognize those questions as being frequently asked ones. North's problem, if you're curious, is with the item that says you may not remove verifiable, well-sourced material solely on the grounds that you personally know that the sources are wrong. He has failed on WT:RS to convince anyone that this is actually wrong. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
We say "Do not praise in headings: You might wish to commend a particular edit, but this could be seen in a different light by someone who disagrees with the edit."
That's a very strong command, and it is pretty silly. Don't say " Congratulations on Featured Article of The Day" in a heading? That's "praise" and it's in a heading. So why exactly shouldn't we say things like that?
As for it being "consistent", that list already fails to be consistent, since the four items run "Do not", "Do not", "Don't" and "Never use". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I looked through and couldn't find anything about editors who create 4 or 5 brand new main sections, separated by other new threads from the original section; and this is in the same week - ie during current discussions. This to keep discussing the same topic, long after it's clear no one agrees with them. I put the first four together, now there's # 5. Did I miss the guideline here or is it somewhere else. Very frustrating. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a conflict between WP:NOSTRIKE, which "bans" strikethough text for accessibility reasons, and WP:REDACT (here), which encourages it in redacting comments which have been replied to. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#WP:NOSTRIKE and WP:REDACT for a centralized discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone isn't aware of this already, Wikipedia:Flow is software that is planned to replace our current way of editing talk pages. I would encourage you all to take a look and possibly comment on the project. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Editors are permitted to archive or remove content from "their own talk pages", but I am wondering what is counted as one's own talk page in the case of someone with a dynamic IP address, such as myself. It happens from time to time that someone will post a comment to me on a talk page for whatever IP address my ISP happens to assign me this time around that results in a discussion. That discussion can go on for a while, meaning that sometimes when I come back to reply again, my IP address is different. In such cases, I always make an effort to make it clear that I am the same editor so as to avoid confusion about the different address. Now if I had a static IP address or were editing from an account, there would be no issue of whether or not I could archive or remove discussions. It seems to me that if a discussion were about editing I was involved in and the conversation were directed to me and I participated in it that I should be able to count the talk page as "my own" for the purposes of archiving or removing those discussions, even after my ISP has assigned me a new IP address. Does this seem correct? 99.192.90.228 ( talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there an actual page on which this is a problem? NE Ent 21:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Registered accounts are kind of like residences with long term leases. You gotta follow some rules the landlord sets, but you can pretty much decorate however you want. Dynamic IP address accounts are like hotel rooms -- you're there for awhile and then you. If you check into a room and find the maid didn't clean up very well you should be able to take out the trash. So if the current user of an IP address wants to dump a message, what exactly is the harm?? NE Ent 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
1) Any edit to any page, including an IP's talk page, that would qualify for WP:Revision deletion can be removed by anyone at any time. WP:ATTACKs, WP:OUTINGs and other egregious WP:BLP violations (editors are usually living people) are the most likely to show up on an IP talk page, but it is possible that WP:COPYVIO and other revision-deletable material may also show up.
2) The same applies to edits which would qualify for speedy deletion, such as a test edit that inadvertently (WP:AGF) corrupted or removed content from a page. Because no "second eye" is needed to edit (vs. deleting a CSD-tagged page), extreme care should be given when judging whether "speedy delete" really applies.
The point being: An IP editor has at least the same rights to edit other people's content on "his" current or former page as a logged-in editor has to edit the same content on the same page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, or where, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large.
I've noticed many editors talking to each other in languages other than English on User Talk pages, and done it in special circumstances myself. Question: Is this wording above intended to raise User Talk pages to the same standard as article Talk pages in this regard? Has there been a previous discussion to apply the same standard? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, or where, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia article talk pages, and if possible also on ones own User Talk page. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large.
The words "No matter to whom you address a comment" have no meaning, as in consensus decision making all comments are directed to the group and never "to whom", and on user talk pages, the comments are solely directed "to whom" is the owner of that user talk page. Apteva ( talk) 18:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It is preferable to use English on all talk pages so comments may be comprehensible to the community. If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so but cannot, you should [omitted either] find a third party to translate or [omitted to] contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy.
The talk page guidelines say
Recently, a question came up on a noticeboard about whether the talk page guidelines prohibit collapsing of comments that violate the noticeboard guidelines but are not generally prohibited on talk pages. For example, arbcom does not allow comments about content disputes, DRN does not allow comments about user conduct, RSN doesn't allow comments that have nothing to do with reliable sources, the reference desk doesn't allow medical or legal questions, etc. Is collapsing of comments that violate the noticeboard guidelines allowed? If so, should this be made explicit in the policy, or would that just be unneeded instruction creep? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is a partial list of noticeboard sections where comments that violated the noticeboard guidelines were hatted or collapsed:
As far as I can tell, most of those collapsed comments would have been allowed on an article talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
If you are looking for opinions to see what consensus is, my opinion is that Project discussion pages that are managed by an active "management group" such as ARBCOM or an active WikiProject can have different guidelines than Wikipedia as a whole provided that those who "own/manage" those talk pages have arrived at their own consensus. However, such talk pages are still subject to Wikipedia's policies. When it comes to WP:OFFICE-managed and possibly WP:ARBCOM-managed project talk pages, I'm even willing to allow OFFICE and possibly ARBCOM to overrule Wikipedia policy in talk pages they manage if there is a clear legally-mandated (as per an explicit action by OFFICE's legal dept.) or non- or minimally-controversial reason to do so, as those groups arguably have the right to unilaterally change policy in exceptional circumstances (OFFICE's legal dept. obviously does, beyond that things are not as clear-cut). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 16:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Use of .7B.7Btalkpageheader.7D.7D.
A bit of background: WP:WikiProject Articles for creation uses a script (the WP:AFCH gadget in your preferences) to add {{ WikiProject Articles for creation}} and other talk-page headers to newly-"created" articles. The script also adds {{ talkpageheader}}, even though there is almost never an actual discussion yet. If memory serves, this was done at my suggestion in the mistaken (?) belief that this was the right thing to do.
The discussion I opened is to determine if we should keep things the way they are. I am in favor of doing just that. Please go to the WPAFC talk page above to participate in this discussion. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 17:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
An editor insists that there should be no spaces between subsequent comments left by editors and goes so far as to remove spaces that other editor intentionally insert. His reasoning is that it affects screen readers. Is this something that we should state outright here and enforce or should we state that this is not something that should be manipulated? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No. You were (almost certainly) told that processing time is not a consideration for editing. WP:LISTGAP specifies (my emphasis) "including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons - including talk page discussions)". The lack of understanding, or refusal to do so, is yours. Hint: which HTML element is used to mark up your comments? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance is not a policy.
It is unfortunate that we're (ab)using definition-list formatting to indent threads in discussion. Eventually WP:Flow will render this talk page kludge obsolete. In between now and then, I suppose that we have to balance the needs of visually impaired editors with the needs of editors who have trouble seeing whose comments are where in the edit window. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
"As far as I can tell, JAWS doesn't read out the definition lists in Wikipedia discussions unless there's another list in the mix (whether it be ordered or unordered). However, NVDA always reads them out. Therefore it's still a good idea to include the talk page exception here."didn't you understand? -- RexxS ( talk) 05:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"We discourage authors from using lists purely as a means of indenting text."You will note that Techniques for WCAG 2.0 explains that
" Authors should test techniques against the user agents and assistive technologies currently available to their users."- the onus is on authors to test whether the html they produce meets accessibility needs. The is no presumption that WCAG can anticipate every possible issue that causes an accessibility problem. Here you have seen that a potential issue has been identified (a blank line causing the closure of one list and the start of another); a user giving a practical example of the problem for the visually impaired (NVDA reading out all of the closing/opening of the lists); and a guideline to help editors avoid the problem (don't put blank lines between indented talk page discussions}. Yet for reasons unknown, you seem to want to make life harder for disabled visitors by preventing the guideline being made explicit. It's time you swallowed your pride and did the right thing - it's easy for those who are not affected by disability issues to stand in the way of improving Wikipedia for those who are. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:LISTGAP is part of the Manual of Style, and is a guideline, not a policy, so let's be accurate. The text before the edit war was:
"Do not separate list items, including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons) or an unordered list, by leaving blank lines between them, since this causes MediaWiki to end one list and start a new one."
and the disputed text was:
"Do not separate list items, including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons - including talk page discussions) or an unordered list, by leaving blank lines between them, since this causes MediaWiki to end one list and start a new one."
So, which of the edit-warriors wants to justify their reverts of the second version on the grounds of "a change of policy"? Who is going to state here that the addition of the words "including talk page discussions" is a change of policy and a not a simple clarification? It is indisputable that Mediawiki software uses colons to produce definition lists and it is equally indisputable that every editor involved in this sorry fiasco use colons to indent their comments in talk page discussions. Those words are not a change of anything, but an unarguable statement of fact. It is an inconvenient truth that we have a flawed mechanism to format our talk page discussions; it is equally true that LISTGAP applies to those discussions. What possible rationale can exist for not making that clear to editors to whom LISTGAP applies? -- RexxS ( talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
" ... NVDA always reads them out."It's in plain English and gives you the proof there's a problem with at least one common screen reader. Yet you want still more evidence. What's next? Are you going to blame NVDA and tell everybody using it to buy JAWS at $1,000 just so that you can carry on with your peccadilloes? It really is a problem. We do need to make it clearly part of these guidelines, and you need to stop obstructing that very process. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"As far as I can tell, JAWS doesn't read out the definition lists in Wikipedia discussions unless there's another list in the mix (whether it be ordered or unordered). However, NVDA always reads them out. Therefore it's still a good idea to include the talk page exception here."There's your diff. Did he indicate that or didn't he? This is the second time I've shown you. Aren't you getting sick of playing games of IDIDNTHEARTHAT yet? -- RexxS ( talk) 17:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This all seems pretty heated for such an issue that is so unimportant to the average editor.
Walter, could you please tell me how exactly you'll personally be harmed by formatting comments in whatever way the resident experts on this issue say is supposed to be best—or at least by not reverting them if they clean things up later? And if you're not actually harmed by it, then why are you wasting so much time fighting with them about it? Don't we have something more important to do than to argue over whether they're right on some obscure detail of HTML accessibility rules? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This does indeed seem pretty heated for such an issue that is so unimportant to the average editor, but it becomes important when Pigsonthewing (AKA "Andy's edits") starts removing lines that other editors purposely put in [21] and edit warring to get his way [22] [23] [24] [25] while quoting as justification a "policy" that he himself added less than two weeks previously. [26]
Now RexxS is an interesting case. If you look past the bluster and personal attacks, he does seem to be attempting to back up his position with at least one bit of data, which is a post by Graham87 [27], who uses the JAWS screen reader almost exclusively and uses NVDA as a backup when JAWS crashes [28]. Graham87 reports that JAWS has no problem with added lines in talk page discussions, but NVDA does. I am not sure what version Graham87 is running or how it is configured (more on that later).
My extensive research cannot find any evidence of any NVDA or JAWS version produced later than 2005 or 2006 that does not read definition lists as if they were just text. If you look at This chart, you will see that this is around the time when Wikipedia started becoming popular. During my research, I ran into multiple websites like this, which found that "NVDA'S behaviour here is interesting in that it just reads the [definition list] items without announcing that it's a list or that the terms and definitions have any relation. The content is just read in a linear fashion."
Another gotcha is that the in most screen readers the above behavior can be changed in the configuration. I suspect that somewhere along the llne the "treat definition lists like linear text" went from defaulting to off to defaulting to on.
Finally, I find that thë following linë of argumënt: "Sufficë it to stay that nobody knows what fraction of rëadërs usë particular assistivë tëchnologiës, nor what thë absolutë numbërs arë - it's not rëcordëd in sërvër logs as browsër typë is...What givës you thë right to spëak for rëadërs who arë affëctëd? - As far as you know it could bë thousands of rëadërs a month affëctëd" [29] to bë an intërësting usë of logic. I could, for ëxamplë, claim that somë usërs ëxpëriëncë an ëlëctric shock whënëvër wë usë an "ë" without an umlaut, and thus wë must allways usë umlautëd ë's. If I wërë to thën go on to arguë that nobody knows how many rëadërs gët shockëd, and to point out that as far as you know it could bë thousands of rëadërs a month affëctëd, thë fact that I cannot comë up with a singlë ëxamplë of a rëal përson who is affëctëd is ëxtrëmëly rëlëvant. Thërë is a hugë diffërëncë bëtwëën "wë don't know how many arë affëctëd" and "wë havë zëro ëxamplës of anyonë bëing affëctëd. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems that there are no actual statistics for this and so we are not going to update the guidelines to recommend the list formatting suggested above. As a result, editors should not be imposing their personal preference on other editors as well. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Recently there was an addition to the page encouraging "keep on topic". It was rightly reversed. However, I got to thinking and perhaps we should discuss that addition. It seems logical, as an addition to a thread that does get off-topic is either a)new comments ignore that errant comment. b)someone makes a comment (sometimes not so nice) telling the editor that the comment is off-topic. c) someone turns the new comment and any responses to it into a new thread because it was off-topic and distracting to the current discussion. Such a small courtesy addition would not be instruction creep as it simply codifies existing Wikipedia ettiquette as a preemptive requirement. It wont solve the problem, but it may encourage new editors to not switch topic in the middle of a discussion. Camelbinky ( talk) 20:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Flow is a planned improvement to the way MediaWiki software handles article talk pages. There is an RfC about how to configure Flow regarding editing other people's article talk page comments. Your input would be welcome. The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Flow#Request for Comment on editing other user's comments with Flow. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
See User:Anomie/talklink. I've tested in Vector, and really like it.
Talkpages that are empty or only have templates on them, have orange Talk tab labels. Talkpages that are redirects have green Talk tab labels (changeable in your css). So good and useful. (Someone asked a related question in VPmisc, which reminded me of this script, and I thought it worth mentioning here). – Quiddity ( talk) 19:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the best way to refer to sources in talk page discussions? For example, if I want to discuss a famous essay I can't use a <ref> tag [2] since there is no reflist. I could use an ordered list like this (see citation 1) but I'm wondering if there is a better way.
Thanks Andrew 327 16:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
reflist-talk|close=1}}
. The |close=1
ensures the references don't get mixed up with any other reflist on the page. But, if you just want to talk about the citation, then use it without the <ref>
tags. --
Gadget850
talk
16:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)@ Guy Macon:, What other ways are you referring to in your edit summary that is not covered in "Discussions on article talk pages should be limited to discussion of relevant reliable sources, the facts and opinions of those sources, and the proper representation of reliable sources (including in matters of WP:Weight and WP:Style)." Seems that covers everything from punctuation to organization to proper summary to identfying sources and citing, etc. I have to run but will check in in several hours. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Under WP:SHOUTING, (redirect to this project page), I think where it says "The user of markup to increase the font size" should have a modification. Consider raising the font size of "increase the font size" to show what it means. 76.226.121.62 ( talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
how long does hydrocodone stay in your system?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.129.251 ( talk) 15:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
In light of a recent edit and it's reversion, I added hatnotes to two sections and retitled "Good Practices" to "Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration" to clarify that the guidelines are primarily for collaboration pages, while emphasizing that it is still a good idea to apply them to user talk pages when it makes sense to do so. Diff. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 15:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not think the exhortation to use English on talk pages ought to apply to user talk pages (and I strongly doubt that, when it was written, whoever wrote it was really thinking about user talk pages anyway). I understand why contributions on article talk pages should be in English to the extent possible. But user talk pages are often used to facilitate communication between a small number of editors at a time (often just two). I see no reason they should have to do so in English, if they prefer to do so in another language. -- Trovatore ( talk) 02:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Two points. First, I think we can probably agree that talk page discussions in various spaces other than article space should be in English. This page, for instance, isn't an article talk page; it's a Wikipedia talk page (i.e., in project space). There are also template talk, category talk, portal talk, and so on, and discussions in those places should be in English as well. Secondly, let's consider the word "preferable". While I can't imagine any reason to forbid the use of other languages on user talk pages (and I'd strongly oppose such a restriction), the guideline merely suggests it's preferable that English be used, and I don't see a problem with that. User talk pages are public, just like other talk pages, and in general it's a good thing for as many editors as possible to be able to read and understand them. Rivertorch ( talk) 04:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
At this section, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments, the guidelines say:
Looking through many talk pages, I most often see <s> and </s> for struck-through text. I don't think I've ever see <del> and </del>. Can I make this change to note this? I hesitate to edit WP guidelines. Thanks for your comments. Liz Read! Talk! 09:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
[30] You say my edit did not reflect "existing practice."
Due to mine preassuming too many things, some of the following may actually be different than existing practice, but I think other assumptions are uncontested (common sense assumptions)
Which of the following implicit assumptions do not reflect "existing practice?"
Thanks DontClickMeName talk contributions 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one should create a talk page in order to place a {{WikiProject}} template on it; or should it be created for certain WikiProjects but not for others (for example WikiProject Disambiguation and/or WikiProject Anthroponymy)? Or perhaps this matter should rather be explain at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide? -- -- -- 03:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one may or should fix red links in others' comments when they link to a page that never existed under that name, but which does exist under a different name or different spelling? -- -- -- 03:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I am planning to did update the out-dated section "
Own comments" (see:
dif836) to directly recommend the widespread practice of self-correcting false comments, as soon as possible, rather than fear touching false or insulting text as if set-in-stone. The updated text would read:[revised 17 December]
DONE: The tactic of self-revising posted messages is so common that it can be seen daily in various talk-pages or noticeboards. Are there any other major issues which should be noted in that paragraph? - Wikid77 ( talk) 19:03, 16 December; revised 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
(Note: I would have searched to see if this has been discussed, but see not search box.)
I'm in a situation across a series of articles where issues are resolved after much discussion, visits to noticeboards, etc. and the same people bring the same issues up again a month or two later and the cycle starts again. (The articles even have community sanctions it's gotten so ridiculous.)
My question: I'm sure I've seen "Resolved" marks occassionally on talk page sections. Is there any way of making a template for use in such situations to at least agree upon a consensus and highlight it at the top of the section for future reference. It won't stop true new discussions, but might discourage same people from doing/writing same things over and over.
A Template that would say something like Resolution: Remove WP:OR interpretation of primary source quote, (see also WP:RSN discussion), Date . With a template something like {{resolved |outcome= txt| See also:= Noticeboard or other link|date=November 2013}} Maybe it even could become part of community sanctions. Thoughts??
User:Carolmooredc
talk
18:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Nearly this entire article has falsities, misrepresentation, and out right distortions. This is NOT a factual history of Copernicus, and this entire article needs much done to correct.. So much, that it should be deleted and redone.
98.156.73.236 ( talk) 08:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Heather
Why has it become common practice to remove (what some consider) offtopic posts from talkpages? The guidelines seems quite clear on this:
X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Is this wiki page or Home page of college, it looks like self-advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.195.195 ( talk) 07:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
Two things this guideline needs to do is:
We are to have a guideline requiring editors to answer questions addressed to them???? Really? I have just checked, and this was not posted on the first of April. So we are not to be allowed to decide what is worth answering and what isn't? Anyone who wants to can oblige me to write about something that I have no wish to write about? OK, but if we do, then let's rename the page from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to Wikipedia:Trolls' charter. Alternatively, we could just accept the fact that, in a voluntary project, where nobody is obliged to do anything, sometimes someone will choose not to answer a question that we would like them to answer. JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't there something here about not adding letter greetings like "Hello" and letter closings like "Sincerely yours," "Warm regards," and the like? I could have sworn there was. In WP discussions, these are distracting and a waste of space, and, worse, sarcastic, when following a particularly aggressive criticism during discussion, even if not intended to be sarcastic. Civility and good etiquette should be baked into how we discuss, not feigned in decorative text. Article talk pages aren't letter exchanges, so greetings and closings should be deprecated, IMHO. "Be concise" sort of covers it, but not explicitly enough, I think. "Sign your posts" and WP:SIG describes explicitly how to do it, but don't explicitly address greetings and closings. Discuss? -- Lexein ( talk) 14:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one should create a talk page in order to place a {{WikiProject}} template on it; or should it be created for certain WikiProjects but not for others (for example WikiProject Disambiguation and/or WikiProject Anthroponymy)? Or perhaps this matter should rather be explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide? -- -- -- 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one may or should fix red links in others' comments when they link to a page that never existed under that name, but which does exist under a different name or different spelling? -- -- -- 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Are we ok with edits like this or this? What can one do about it? CombatWombat42 ( talk) 18:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
-:::*Remember to not WP:NTTR, if you've got any common sense. - SchroCat ( talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If you read WP:NTTR and WP:TTR, you will find that the arguments at WP:TTR are far more persuasive. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
, and
Wikipedia's robots.txt file disallows /w/
.