This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
This guideline formerly allowed for two styles of indenting — threading (where each post is indented one more than the post it is responding to and should be placed directly under that post and all its existing responses at the same level but above others of less indentation, without regard for chronology in the postings) or per-user indenting (where each user uses a single indentation level for an entire discussion and all posts are listed chronologically) — but now it recommends only threading.
When User:Kim Bruning made that change, she suggested it was justified because "no one on internet or wikipedia uses [per-user posting] AFAIK (if you have evidence to the contrary, please come forward :) )." Not too long afterwards, I noticed the change and brought forth evidence on the matter, but I have not received any response. I'll reiterate here.
The benefits of threaded discussion are well discussed and true, but I'd add that when a long discussion involves only a few users and is rather linear (e.g., this discussion), per-user indentation can be easier to read since it doesn't waste space and scrunch replies on the right side of the screen. Therefore, I propose restoring per-user indentation as an option. -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 13:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Jewelry is spelled jewelry and pronounced jew-el-ry (joo'al re) and not jew-ler-ry. Writer probably spelled it the way he/she pronounces it; both of which are incorrect. It is a product of putting jewels into settings; not a place to keep Jews.
jdm 65.169.222.98 01:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed one instance of vandalism on this page. The caption "The Sacred Heart of Jesus" had been changed to "The Sacred shit of Jesus."
Thanks.
70.153.105.118 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Corey
I would like to see the talk page guidelines specify that generally speaking, editorial comments belong on the talk page, and not embedded in the article in the form of <!---interpolated comments --->. I brought this up at the Village pump policy page, but discussion is dying down, and I can't tell if there is any kind of community consensus on this issue. Best, MoodyGroove 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
I have noticed an interesting issue after I reverted User:Uncle G's edit on the community sanction noticeboard [1]. As a result I had unintentionally sparked an edit war among a few other users, who left a few comments on that page.
What Uncle G did was replace all colons with asterisks, while adding a comment to discussion. As a result it made the resulting diff very confusing and difficult to use for future investigation. When I asked Uncle G of this, ( here) he responded that: "There are several reasons for using asterisks instead of colons, especially on large discussion pages. Have a look at what and how much HTML markup each generates, for starters."
I'm interested in finding some clarification regarding this. - Zero1328 Talk? 13:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: Both actually generate the same amount of HTML, simply with <ul> and <li> vs <dl> and <dd>. What generates more HTML is when they are mixed improperly, for example:
*comment **comment 2 ***comment 3
generates
<ul> <li>comment <ul>
<li>comment 2 <ul> <li>comment 3</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul>
and
:comment ::comment 2 :::comment 3
generates:
<dl> <dd>comment <dl> <dd>comment 2 <dl> <dd>comment 3</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl>
but
*comment :*comment 2 ::*comment 3
which I see all too often, generates
<ul> <li>comment</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>comment 2</li>
</ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>comment 3</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl>
adding blank lines between is also, by the way a problem for either:
:comment ::comment2 :::comment3
yields
<dl> <dd>comment</dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>comment2</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>comment3</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl>
with it getting even worse for deeper levels of indentation (not a problem when there are no blank lines. And, for bullets, you get this:
which is probably why people use the "::*" style in the first place.
Note: mixing indentation styles is perfectly fine, as long as you do it right:
*comment *:comment 2 (no bullet) *:*comment 3 (has a bullet)
<ul> <li>comment <dl> <dd>comment 2 (no bullet) <ul> <li>comment 3 (has a bullet)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </li> </ul>
— Random832 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Incidentally, if you do it wrong with numbers, you'll get this:
or this:
so people tend to stick to the proper format better with numbered lists than with bullets or simple indentation. In conclusion, the "right" way is to never place blank lines in between comments (except if one has no indentation at all, then it doesn't matter), and when replying, always copy the exact sequence of indenting symbols from the comment you're replying to, and add whichever of : or * you prefer. I do occasionally edit discussions to adhere to this, since it really does improve both the appearance (avoiding multiple bullets, mainly) and the generated HTML, while it has no effect on any individual user's preference/intent on whether they want a bullet in front of their comment or not. — Random832 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
What are the similarities and differences between the capital market and the money market? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.11.130 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, June 27, 2007 (UTC)
I added a clause about editing signatures, which is often (and rightly so) viewed as an uncivil action and in violation of m:Dick. However, I also added an exception, being if the signature violates the terms set out in WP:SIG. :) Rockstar ( T/ C) 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If somebody repetedly blanks out some comments from the talk page (apart from what is allowed described under Others' comments). Should I revert it? Once? Several times? Even if it risks 3RR? // Liftarn
I have suggested a change to the talkheader template in order to decrease the amount of random stuff on this page. Your comments are appreciated. -- User:Krator ( t c) 17:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What about removing comments from sock puppets on article talk pages. Regardless of sock status non article very off topic can and should be removed but what about harsh borderline stuff that is more ranting but about the article subject. Delt/dealing with & trying to clean up some messes a multiple repeat sock puppets has left. Sometimes picking up the conversation right up when one account gets blocked as if nothings up. Should a sock puppets comments have any credible merrit or should they be removed? -- Xiahou 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a better place to ask this where admins will be more apt to read it and be able to rule on it? I have a bunch of sockpuppet comments on talk pages I'd really like to know if I should leave them or not especially the more radical borderline off topic ones. -- Xiahou 21:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Some talk pages have numerous instances of the same topic coming up, with signs that the people writing later ones failed to look at existing topics to see whether their talk concern had been addressed already. Additionally, sometimes questions are asked in sections where they do not belong, or at the top of the page without any section header at all. (Apologies for the numbered lists, but this easiest to ask about in that form, and to discuss in terms like "option I.1.iii". Apologies also for verbosity.)
-- Steve Schonberger 13:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Normally I would not be troubled by something like this, but as I've been involved in two separate discussions about it in a short period of time, I am concerned/curious about how some people are interpreting (and, in my opinion, pedantically going overboard) the Talk oage guidleines. The argument du jour has been to remove comments on the talk pages (rather than responding to them) for being more directly about the subject of an article than about the article itself. This recently happened to me in response to a question I posted on the talk page of Playmania.
I do have a tendency to ask questions on talk pages regarding the subject of the article, but I believe they are for legitimate reasons: namely, I will not edit a page unless I'm reasonably certain that what I recall or speculate on is correct. So, I feel that in the interests of maintaining NPOV and avoiding edit wars in general, the Talk page is the page an editor SHOULD go to first regarding unclear information about "the subject." Others clearly disagree, but the "write about the article, not the subject rule," when taken to its logical extreme, simply doesn't seem very helpful to me, as basically the only thing it allows you to do is comment AFTER THE FACT on something that may not be factual or relevant to an article. The way some editors here interpret the rules, it's acceptable to watch for possibly false or irrelevant information in an article, and then to point out where it goes wrong on the talk page, but taking the good faith preventive measure of asking the questions FIRST on the Talk page is somehow sacrosanct. Am I the only one here who thinks the the rules of Talk pages need to be somewhat more flexible in order to prevent malfeasance on the pages themselves?
Moreover, if one feels that another editor is abusing the talk page, isn't it considered more appropriate to respond to the comment and explain WHY it's an abuse, rather than just removing another user's comments? In fact, I was under the impression that removing another user's comments on a talk page other than one's own is verboten. Help me out here. ChrisStansfield 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There should be some more information on starting new talk pages for articles that do not yet have talk pages. Guidelines should be set so that all talk pages have the same beginning format (templates, etc.) -- bse3 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have seen a site that moved an objectionable external links section to the discussion page. Little discussion has been generated. Is this kosher? DCDuring 11:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I received this email today - I believe it fraudulent and should be posted as a warning - I cannot imagine the President of anything email total strangers to transact banking for their company - I did not know where else to post this other than here - can you help???
My name is Jane Oberg and my email address is queencowdesigns@yahoo.com - todays date is 9/18/07 - is there a way to forward this to Pres. Wade - I have opened his home page but my only language is English so I am lost there - thanks for any suggestions or help - JLO
Dear Friend Mrs.Jane L. Oberg,
Top of the day to you.I feel quite safe dealing with you in this business preposition having gone through your remarkable profile on the internet.Though, this medium (Internet)has been greatly abused, I choose to reach you through it because it still remains the fastest,surest and most secured medium of communication.Let me crave your indulgence to introduce myself to you I am Abdoulaye Wade,Presidente executive officer of Star Energy Group plc. We are OPEC members who deal on crude oil and raw material. Go to my website: http://www.senegal-online.com/francais/histoire/presidents/wade/
I will want to solicit for your assistance to help collect a payment that is due to my colleagues for services and supplies we rendered. My colleagues want someone in usa who has ( HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT ACCOUNT ) to receive the fund for us.why we want someone with ( EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT ACCOUNT ) was because of our previous exeperince where our representative run away with our money.
Please if you are willing to assist,I will want you to furnish me with your particulars, so as to enable me give you further details. Please, you have to be an honest and trusted person,as more payments will be made through you in the course of this transaction.And moreso you will be entitled to 10% of every payment that you are able to recieve for us from our customers, and all transfer charges would be deducted from the principal amount.Please contact us for more information via email with the below informations filled out.
YOUR NAME. YOUR AGE:. YOUR STATUS:. YOUR STATE/COUNTRY. YOUR TEL/FAX NUMBERS YOUR COMPANY NAME.. YOUR OCCUPATION.
We look forward in working with you. Presidente Abdoulaye Wade, Star Energy Group plc, Dakar Senegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.254.123 ( talk) 20:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I found that someone had written the word "faggots" on someone else's usertalk page. Although it was not directed at the user, it is still offensive; in a case like this, would it be going against the rules of editing someone else's comments to remove the word? -- DearPrudence 23:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
What about filibustering - what I mean is when an editor puts so much material on a talk page that they start to dominate the conversation through sheer volume of comments. This can easily be done in good faith, because sometimes people are just so sure that they are 'right' that if they just keep explaining it enough, eventually people will 'get it'. It can be very hard to figure out what is the consensus on a contentious issue when more than 50% of the text on a page is generated by one or two editors. There doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline to address this... should there be? Dlabtot 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there are any guidelines on where to insert comments within a section on a talk page. I've seen people insert comments above others' comments. It's realy frustrating because it disrupts the chronological flow of the section and is disrespectful of those editors whose comments are being pushed downward. Is there a guideline I can reference? Thanks. CWPappas 05:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Original post
:Reply 1
::Reply to Reply 1 (made after Reply 2)
:Reply 2
—
Random832 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)What do the rules say about removing relevant comments from a discussion? If there is a discussion on a user talk page and you have something to say about the discussion, and you make a completely relevant post, but the owner of that user talk page deletes your comment from the discussion because they "don't like you," and then the discussion continues, is this allowable per the talk page guidelines? Here are the edits which I am referring to: [2] [3] [4]. Ksy92003 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
With alarming figures being published about obesity in the United States, it has become a cause for concern among health experts and the people in general all over the world. In the United States, 58 million adults are overweight, 40 million are obese and 3 million suffer from life threatening obesity. There has been a 76 percent increase in diabetes in adults between the ages of 30—40 years since 1990 because of obesity. Although, physical –exercise and balanced diet are best probable ways to avoid weight augment, but if afflicted by obesity drugs are perhaps the only solution, together with a diet plan and exercise. Diet pills are mainly for those suffering from serious obesity. Obesity is a complex disorder and it arises from the accumulation of excess fat in the body from over consumption of fatty foods. Unlike drugs for other serious diseases like malaria, tuberculosis or diabetes, it was only in 1959 that F.D.A (Food and Drug Administration of U.S.) approved Phentermine resin as an appetite suppressant useful for cure of obesity. It was in 1997 that Fen –Phen, a mixture of fenfluramine and Phentermine was endorsed as weight loss pill, and in a years time it achieved overnight success. By mid 1998, approx 18 million prescriptions were written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.44.211 ( talk) 06:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Should there be a section added here to confirm where talk page tags should be placed (e.g. templates such as for WikiProjects, {{ oldafdfull}}, {{ ArticleHistory}})? Or does such a policy or guideline appear elsewhere? The common practice seems to be that TP tags are kept at the top and should not be archived. We could also encourage compacting multiple similar tags to keep some order at the top e.g. combine multiple WikiProject tags in a collapsible structure, similar to what User:MadmanBot is doing. Dl2000 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Elsewhere, it's been argued that removal of a message from a user talk page can be considered acknowledgement of the message, and therefore it's okay for a user to remove said messages from his or her own user talk page. However, I should point out that the same does not apply to anonymous IP user talk pages - the page may be shared among numerous users, and there is no way to know whether an anonymous IP user is the intended recipient of the message or not.
If another user on that IP comes along and removes messages from an IP user talk page, this may prevent those messages from reaching their intended recipient. While one may argue that this is part of the benefit of having a user account, I should note that failure to deliver a message is a problem not only for the recipient but also the sender.
Additionally, a large portion of the comments left on anonymous IP user talk pages are of an advisory, investigatory, or disciplinary nature. Removal of such messages, especially within a short time frame of their placement, increases the difficulty with which other users become aware of problems emanating from that IP address, including other people who happen to make use of that IP and who might be well-served to take notice of such a problem.
Therefore, I would like to suggest that this guideline discourage users of anonymous IP talk pages from removing or archiving comments of less than a certain age (such as one month). (I personally feel the same should apply to any user talk page, but that can be addressed later, I suppose.) -- Dachannien Talk Contrib 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This issue has apparently come up yet again on ANI - so: does the section about editing others' comments apply to section headings (which appear in the table of contents, are visually separated from anything with a signature on it, and are meant to describe the entire discussion below it rather than just the first thing the user who brought it up said) — Random832 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
A good thing about Wikipedia is that it's not a bureaucracy. For rulings on very specific cases like this, best see WP:IAR and try to apply common sense and reason. User:Krator ( t c) 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
doesn't fall under the heading of changing for neutrality. There is no carte blanche provided to change others' comments (or headers) in a Talk discussion if you feel they misrepresent the issue or beg the question. Start your own section (with a new header) if you insist the issue is wrongly stated. EdJohnston 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)I've taken the liberty to change the title of this debate because I feel that it misrepresents the issue and begs the question
Hello - I made the recommended revisions (removing "peacock" terms, providing published 3rd party sources about subject) today. I hope this addresses the notability concerns. Thanks. Psipe 16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This comment stems from your entry for Medicare Part D, but concerns Wikipedia practices in general.
Our society seems to have gone hogwild over abbreviations and acronyms during the past 30 or 40 years. Therein lies a mutual problem for both Wikipedia and its readers. As I read along, I encounter some abbreviation, such as MMA in your entry for Medicare Part D, and I'm stumped. What's that stand for? If I search diligently through the prior part of the entry I can find it, but it takes a careful, diligent, time- consuming search and (as with MMA) it might turn out to be tucked away in some odd niche, not in the preceding prose, where one would expect to find it. Because the use of abbreviations and acronyms has become widespread, texts -- yours are relevant here -- are loaded with them, and for readers to cope becomes time wasting, not to mention annoying. In other words, it's a problem.
There's a solution to the problem.
Enter a list of abbreviations and acronyms at or near the beginning of the text. Alternatively (but less handy for the reader) enter the list at the end, but with a notation at or near the beginning that the list is down there at the end (as an appendix). 75.36.159.152 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Lank Felsen at lankf@hotmail.com
I could not find information about the value and function of the tonsils. If they get infected by certain bacteria/germs, etc., they are usually removed. However, what impact do those bacteria/germs, etc. then have on the body once the tonsils are removed. The article could be expanded to deal with the issue of the value of the tonsils. Are they a filtering organ to block germs and bacteria? What happens when that filter is removed from the body? thanks for some clarification in the article.
63.174.94.2 15:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't get how to upload images could you tell me how to? thanks,-- Pomergirl ( talk) 23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)LOllipup
Generally speaking, is it acceptable practice to make minor formatting changes to a talk page for better readability of the code? I'm simply talking about things like adding spaces or extra lines between comments, which makes it easier to read from the edit window. I didn't see anything on the project page discussing this; perhaps we could add something? Pyrospirit ( talk · contribs) 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello I am a high school honor student and doing research for what kind of people look up on wikipedia. Please give me your name, age or what grade you are in so I can Complete my study.
I have no strong feelings about this, but I would like input from others. With so many people using AWB, I've noticed a trend in "fixing" (spelling, grammar, capitalization, etc.) other people's comments on talk pages, and other Wiki-space pages (like bot requests, AN/ANI, etc.). The part of me that is a stickler for spelling and grammar is happy to see this, but another part of me believes in the talk page etiquette guideline that you should not edit other people's comments. It seems this may be something that should be avoided. It should not be hard for those who use AWB to simply skip anything not in article space (I use AWB occasionally, and I do not edit pages that are outside article space for this reason) but I'd like to know what others think. Ariel ♥ Gold 10:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have 2 questions really.
The first one is: why does "Stay objective" says "Talk pages are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article". Why "secondary sources" and not reliable sources ? The concept of Reliable sources is much more recognized in the community.
The second is this: could we be more explicit in this policy on the need for participants in a talk page to provide his/her secondary sources when requested ? The issue was raised in Talk:Cold fusion, where the talk page was polluted by unsourced (and wrong) opinions. I recommend it because it would eliminate a lot of babble on talk pages, improve the reliability of wikipedia, and save a lot of time to a lot of people. It would also help avoid heated discussions.
Thanks in advance for your comments. Pcarbonn ( talk) 08:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Andrewa. Another reason to keep this discussion here is that I presented the same argument in another discussion, not related to a page move. See the cold fusion talk page (see Confirmation of Fleischmann-Pons excess heat).
Here is the wording I propose for the policy:
Pcarbonn ( talk) 11:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Users should be required to source article content, but I believe requiring sources for statements made in talk pages, and especially letting editors delete unsourced claims made in talk pages would not be good for the project. There are good reasons why standards for talk pages need to be somewhat looser than for articles. If we gave editors license to delete others' comments willy-nilly, it would create far more problems than it would solve. Talk pages serve as a place for opinionated editors to let off a little steam, making their case for their preferred point of view and arguing against actions they think are unfair. Allowing this valve serves a useful function and minimizes disruption on the encyclopdia. It's one thing to block repetitively disruptive users. It's another thing to bring in standards that editors will be able to use against each other that will lead to chaos. The Wikipedia process requires open and free discussion. Standards that cut off discussion too easily for non-serious infractions risk creating more conflict rather than helping negotiate and reach concensus. Best, -- Shirahadasha 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
This guideline formerly allowed for two styles of indenting — threading (where each post is indented one more than the post it is responding to and should be placed directly under that post and all its existing responses at the same level but above others of less indentation, without regard for chronology in the postings) or per-user indenting (where each user uses a single indentation level for an entire discussion and all posts are listed chronologically) — but now it recommends only threading.
When User:Kim Bruning made that change, she suggested it was justified because "no one on internet or wikipedia uses [per-user posting] AFAIK (if you have evidence to the contrary, please come forward :) )." Not too long afterwards, I noticed the change and brought forth evidence on the matter, but I have not received any response. I'll reiterate here.
The benefits of threaded discussion are well discussed and true, but I'd add that when a long discussion involves only a few users and is rather linear (e.g., this discussion), per-user indentation can be easier to read since it doesn't waste space and scrunch replies on the right side of the screen. Therefore, I propose restoring per-user indentation as an option. -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 13:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Jewelry is spelled jewelry and pronounced jew-el-ry (joo'al re) and not jew-ler-ry. Writer probably spelled it the way he/she pronounces it; both of which are incorrect. It is a product of putting jewels into settings; not a place to keep Jews.
jdm 65.169.222.98 01:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed one instance of vandalism on this page. The caption "The Sacred Heart of Jesus" had been changed to "The Sacred shit of Jesus."
Thanks.
70.153.105.118 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Corey
I would like to see the talk page guidelines specify that generally speaking, editorial comments belong on the talk page, and not embedded in the article in the form of <!---interpolated comments --->. I brought this up at the Village pump policy page, but discussion is dying down, and I can't tell if there is any kind of community consensus on this issue. Best, MoodyGroove 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
I have noticed an interesting issue after I reverted User:Uncle G's edit on the community sanction noticeboard [1]. As a result I had unintentionally sparked an edit war among a few other users, who left a few comments on that page.
What Uncle G did was replace all colons with asterisks, while adding a comment to discussion. As a result it made the resulting diff very confusing and difficult to use for future investigation. When I asked Uncle G of this, ( here) he responded that: "There are several reasons for using asterisks instead of colons, especially on large discussion pages. Have a look at what and how much HTML markup each generates, for starters."
I'm interested in finding some clarification regarding this. - Zero1328 Talk? 13:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: Both actually generate the same amount of HTML, simply with <ul> and <li> vs <dl> and <dd>. What generates more HTML is when they are mixed improperly, for example:
*comment **comment 2 ***comment 3
generates
<ul> <li>comment <ul>
<li>comment 2 <ul> <li>comment 3</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul>
and
:comment ::comment 2 :::comment 3
generates:
<dl> <dd>comment <dl> <dd>comment 2 <dl> <dd>comment 3</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl>
but
*comment :*comment 2 ::*comment 3
which I see all too often, generates
<ul> <li>comment</li> </ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>comment 2</li>
</ul> <dl> <dd> <ul> <li>comment 3</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl>
adding blank lines between is also, by the way a problem for either:
:comment ::comment2 :::comment3
yields
<dl> <dd>comment</dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>comment2</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd> <dl> <dd>comment3</dd> </dl> </dd> </dl> </dd> </dl>
with it getting even worse for deeper levels of indentation (not a problem when there are no blank lines. And, for bullets, you get this:
which is probably why people use the "::*" style in the first place.
Note: mixing indentation styles is perfectly fine, as long as you do it right:
*comment *:comment 2 (no bullet) *:*comment 3 (has a bullet)
<ul> <li>comment <dl> <dd>comment 2 (no bullet) <ul> <li>comment 3 (has a bullet)</li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </li> </ul>
— Random832 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Incidentally, if you do it wrong with numbers, you'll get this:
or this:
so people tend to stick to the proper format better with numbered lists than with bullets or simple indentation. In conclusion, the "right" way is to never place blank lines in between comments (except if one has no indentation at all, then it doesn't matter), and when replying, always copy the exact sequence of indenting symbols from the comment you're replying to, and add whichever of : or * you prefer. I do occasionally edit discussions to adhere to this, since it really does improve both the appearance (avoiding multiple bullets, mainly) and the generated HTML, while it has no effect on any individual user's preference/intent on whether they want a bullet in front of their comment or not. — Random832 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
What are the similarities and differences between the capital market and the money market? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.11.130 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, June 27, 2007 (UTC)
I added a clause about editing signatures, which is often (and rightly so) viewed as an uncivil action and in violation of m:Dick. However, I also added an exception, being if the signature violates the terms set out in WP:SIG. :) Rockstar ( T/ C) 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If somebody repetedly blanks out some comments from the talk page (apart from what is allowed described under Others' comments). Should I revert it? Once? Several times? Even if it risks 3RR? // Liftarn
I have suggested a change to the talkheader template in order to decrease the amount of random stuff on this page. Your comments are appreciated. -- User:Krator ( t c) 17:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What about removing comments from sock puppets on article talk pages. Regardless of sock status non article very off topic can and should be removed but what about harsh borderline stuff that is more ranting but about the article subject. Delt/dealing with & trying to clean up some messes a multiple repeat sock puppets has left. Sometimes picking up the conversation right up when one account gets blocked as if nothings up. Should a sock puppets comments have any credible merrit or should they be removed? -- Xiahou 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a better place to ask this where admins will be more apt to read it and be able to rule on it? I have a bunch of sockpuppet comments on talk pages I'd really like to know if I should leave them or not especially the more radical borderline off topic ones. -- Xiahou 21:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Some talk pages have numerous instances of the same topic coming up, with signs that the people writing later ones failed to look at existing topics to see whether their talk concern had been addressed already. Additionally, sometimes questions are asked in sections where they do not belong, or at the top of the page without any section header at all. (Apologies for the numbered lists, but this easiest to ask about in that form, and to discuss in terms like "option I.1.iii". Apologies also for verbosity.)
-- Steve Schonberger 13:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Normally I would not be troubled by something like this, but as I've been involved in two separate discussions about it in a short period of time, I am concerned/curious about how some people are interpreting (and, in my opinion, pedantically going overboard) the Talk oage guidleines. The argument du jour has been to remove comments on the talk pages (rather than responding to them) for being more directly about the subject of an article than about the article itself. This recently happened to me in response to a question I posted on the talk page of Playmania.
I do have a tendency to ask questions on talk pages regarding the subject of the article, but I believe they are for legitimate reasons: namely, I will not edit a page unless I'm reasonably certain that what I recall or speculate on is correct. So, I feel that in the interests of maintaining NPOV and avoiding edit wars in general, the Talk page is the page an editor SHOULD go to first regarding unclear information about "the subject." Others clearly disagree, but the "write about the article, not the subject rule," when taken to its logical extreme, simply doesn't seem very helpful to me, as basically the only thing it allows you to do is comment AFTER THE FACT on something that may not be factual or relevant to an article. The way some editors here interpret the rules, it's acceptable to watch for possibly false or irrelevant information in an article, and then to point out where it goes wrong on the talk page, but taking the good faith preventive measure of asking the questions FIRST on the Talk page is somehow sacrosanct. Am I the only one here who thinks the the rules of Talk pages need to be somewhat more flexible in order to prevent malfeasance on the pages themselves?
Moreover, if one feels that another editor is abusing the talk page, isn't it considered more appropriate to respond to the comment and explain WHY it's an abuse, rather than just removing another user's comments? In fact, I was under the impression that removing another user's comments on a talk page other than one's own is verboten. Help me out here. ChrisStansfield 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There should be some more information on starting new talk pages for articles that do not yet have talk pages. Guidelines should be set so that all talk pages have the same beginning format (templates, etc.) -- bse3 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have seen a site that moved an objectionable external links section to the discussion page. Little discussion has been generated. Is this kosher? DCDuring 11:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I received this email today - I believe it fraudulent and should be posted as a warning - I cannot imagine the President of anything email total strangers to transact banking for their company - I did not know where else to post this other than here - can you help???
My name is Jane Oberg and my email address is queencowdesigns@yahoo.com - todays date is 9/18/07 - is there a way to forward this to Pres. Wade - I have opened his home page but my only language is English so I am lost there - thanks for any suggestions or help - JLO
Dear Friend Mrs.Jane L. Oberg,
Top of the day to you.I feel quite safe dealing with you in this business preposition having gone through your remarkable profile on the internet.Though, this medium (Internet)has been greatly abused, I choose to reach you through it because it still remains the fastest,surest and most secured medium of communication.Let me crave your indulgence to introduce myself to you I am Abdoulaye Wade,Presidente executive officer of Star Energy Group plc. We are OPEC members who deal on crude oil and raw material. Go to my website: http://www.senegal-online.com/francais/histoire/presidents/wade/
I will want to solicit for your assistance to help collect a payment that is due to my colleagues for services and supplies we rendered. My colleagues want someone in usa who has ( HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT ACCOUNT ) to receive the fund for us.why we want someone with ( EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT ACCOUNT ) was because of our previous exeperince where our representative run away with our money.
Please if you are willing to assist,I will want you to furnish me with your particulars, so as to enable me give you further details. Please, you have to be an honest and trusted person,as more payments will be made through you in the course of this transaction.And moreso you will be entitled to 10% of every payment that you are able to recieve for us from our customers, and all transfer charges would be deducted from the principal amount.Please contact us for more information via email with the below informations filled out.
YOUR NAME. YOUR AGE:. YOUR STATUS:. YOUR STATE/COUNTRY. YOUR TEL/FAX NUMBERS YOUR COMPANY NAME.. YOUR OCCUPATION.
We look forward in working with you. Presidente Abdoulaye Wade, Star Energy Group plc, Dakar Senegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.254.123 ( talk) 20:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I found that someone had written the word "faggots" on someone else's usertalk page. Although it was not directed at the user, it is still offensive; in a case like this, would it be going against the rules of editing someone else's comments to remove the word? -- DearPrudence 23:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
What about filibustering - what I mean is when an editor puts so much material on a talk page that they start to dominate the conversation through sheer volume of comments. This can easily be done in good faith, because sometimes people are just so sure that they are 'right' that if they just keep explaining it enough, eventually people will 'get it'. It can be very hard to figure out what is the consensus on a contentious issue when more than 50% of the text on a page is generated by one or two editors. There doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline to address this... should there be? Dlabtot 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there are any guidelines on where to insert comments within a section on a talk page. I've seen people insert comments above others' comments. It's realy frustrating because it disrupts the chronological flow of the section and is disrespectful of those editors whose comments are being pushed downward. Is there a guideline I can reference? Thanks. CWPappas 05:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Original post
:Reply 1
::Reply to Reply 1 (made after Reply 2)
:Reply 2
—
Random832 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)What do the rules say about removing relevant comments from a discussion? If there is a discussion on a user talk page and you have something to say about the discussion, and you make a completely relevant post, but the owner of that user talk page deletes your comment from the discussion because they "don't like you," and then the discussion continues, is this allowable per the talk page guidelines? Here are the edits which I am referring to: [2] [3] [4]. Ksy92003 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
With alarming figures being published about obesity in the United States, it has become a cause for concern among health experts and the people in general all over the world. In the United States, 58 million adults are overweight, 40 million are obese and 3 million suffer from life threatening obesity. There has been a 76 percent increase in diabetes in adults between the ages of 30—40 years since 1990 because of obesity. Although, physical –exercise and balanced diet are best probable ways to avoid weight augment, but if afflicted by obesity drugs are perhaps the only solution, together with a diet plan and exercise. Diet pills are mainly for those suffering from serious obesity. Obesity is a complex disorder and it arises from the accumulation of excess fat in the body from over consumption of fatty foods. Unlike drugs for other serious diseases like malaria, tuberculosis or diabetes, it was only in 1959 that F.D.A (Food and Drug Administration of U.S.) approved Phentermine resin as an appetite suppressant useful for cure of obesity. It was in 1997 that Fen –Phen, a mixture of fenfluramine and Phentermine was endorsed as weight loss pill, and in a years time it achieved overnight success. By mid 1998, approx 18 million prescriptions were written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.44.211 ( talk) 06:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Should there be a section added here to confirm where talk page tags should be placed (e.g. templates such as for WikiProjects, {{ oldafdfull}}, {{ ArticleHistory}})? Or does such a policy or guideline appear elsewhere? The common practice seems to be that TP tags are kept at the top and should not be archived. We could also encourage compacting multiple similar tags to keep some order at the top e.g. combine multiple WikiProject tags in a collapsible structure, similar to what User:MadmanBot is doing. Dl2000 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Elsewhere, it's been argued that removal of a message from a user talk page can be considered acknowledgement of the message, and therefore it's okay for a user to remove said messages from his or her own user talk page. However, I should point out that the same does not apply to anonymous IP user talk pages - the page may be shared among numerous users, and there is no way to know whether an anonymous IP user is the intended recipient of the message or not.
If another user on that IP comes along and removes messages from an IP user talk page, this may prevent those messages from reaching their intended recipient. While one may argue that this is part of the benefit of having a user account, I should note that failure to deliver a message is a problem not only for the recipient but also the sender.
Additionally, a large portion of the comments left on anonymous IP user talk pages are of an advisory, investigatory, or disciplinary nature. Removal of such messages, especially within a short time frame of their placement, increases the difficulty with which other users become aware of problems emanating from that IP address, including other people who happen to make use of that IP and who might be well-served to take notice of such a problem.
Therefore, I would like to suggest that this guideline discourage users of anonymous IP talk pages from removing or archiving comments of less than a certain age (such as one month). (I personally feel the same should apply to any user talk page, but that can be addressed later, I suppose.) -- Dachannien Talk Contrib 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This issue has apparently come up yet again on ANI - so: does the section about editing others' comments apply to section headings (which appear in the table of contents, are visually separated from anything with a signature on it, and are meant to describe the entire discussion below it rather than just the first thing the user who brought it up said) — Random832 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
A good thing about Wikipedia is that it's not a bureaucracy. For rulings on very specific cases like this, best see WP:IAR and try to apply common sense and reason. User:Krator ( t c) 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
doesn't fall under the heading of changing for neutrality. There is no carte blanche provided to change others' comments (or headers) in a Talk discussion if you feel they misrepresent the issue or beg the question. Start your own section (with a new header) if you insist the issue is wrongly stated. EdJohnston 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)I've taken the liberty to change the title of this debate because I feel that it misrepresents the issue and begs the question
Hello - I made the recommended revisions (removing "peacock" terms, providing published 3rd party sources about subject) today. I hope this addresses the notability concerns. Thanks. Psipe 16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This comment stems from your entry for Medicare Part D, but concerns Wikipedia practices in general.
Our society seems to have gone hogwild over abbreviations and acronyms during the past 30 or 40 years. Therein lies a mutual problem for both Wikipedia and its readers. As I read along, I encounter some abbreviation, such as MMA in your entry for Medicare Part D, and I'm stumped. What's that stand for? If I search diligently through the prior part of the entry I can find it, but it takes a careful, diligent, time- consuming search and (as with MMA) it might turn out to be tucked away in some odd niche, not in the preceding prose, where one would expect to find it. Because the use of abbreviations and acronyms has become widespread, texts -- yours are relevant here -- are loaded with them, and for readers to cope becomes time wasting, not to mention annoying. In other words, it's a problem.
There's a solution to the problem.
Enter a list of abbreviations and acronyms at or near the beginning of the text. Alternatively (but less handy for the reader) enter the list at the end, but with a notation at or near the beginning that the list is down there at the end (as an appendix). 75.36.159.152 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Lank Felsen at lankf@hotmail.com
I could not find information about the value and function of the tonsils. If they get infected by certain bacteria/germs, etc., they are usually removed. However, what impact do those bacteria/germs, etc. then have on the body once the tonsils are removed. The article could be expanded to deal with the issue of the value of the tonsils. Are they a filtering organ to block germs and bacteria? What happens when that filter is removed from the body? thanks for some clarification in the article.
63.174.94.2 15:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't get how to upload images could you tell me how to? thanks,-- Pomergirl ( talk) 23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)LOllipup
Generally speaking, is it acceptable practice to make minor formatting changes to a talk page for better readability of the code? I'm simply talking about things like adding spaces or extra lines between comments, which makes it easier to read from the edit window. I didn't see anything on the project page discussing this; perhaps we could add something? Pyrospirit ( talk · contribs) 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello I am a high school honor student and doing research for what kind of people look up on wikipedia. Please give me your name, age or what grade you are in so I can Complete my study.
I have no strong feelings about this, but I would like input from others. With so many people using AWB, I've noticed a trend in "fixing" (spelling, grammar, capitalization, etc.) other people's comments on talk pages, and other Wiki-space pages (like bot requests, AN/ANI, etc.). The part of me that is a stickler for spelling and grammar is happy to see this, but another part of me believes in the talk page etiquette guideline that you should not edit other people's comments. It seems this may be something that should be avoided. It should not be hard for those who use AWB to simply skip anything not in article space (I use AWB occasionally, and I do not edit pages that are outside article space for this reason) but I'd like to know what others think. Ariel ♥ Gold 10:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have 2 questions really.
The first one is: why does "Stay objective" says "Talk pages are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article". Why "secondary sources" and not reliable sources ? The concept of Reliable sources is much more recognized in the community.
The second is this: could we be more explicit in this policy on the need for participants in a talk page to provide his/her secondary sources when requested ? The issue was raised in Talk:Cold fusion, where the talk page was polluted by unsourced (and wrong) opinions. I recommend it because it would eliminate a lot of babble on talk pages, improve the reliability of wikipedia, and save a lot of time to a lot of people. It would also help avoid heated discussions.
Thanks in advance for your comments. Pcarbonn ( talk) 08:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Andrewa. Another reason to keep this discussion here is that I presented the same argument in another discussion, not related to a page move. See the cold fusion talk page (see Confirmation of Fleischmann-Pons excess heat).
Here is the wording I propose for the policy:
Pcarbonn ( talk) 11:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Users should be required to source article content, but I believe requiring sources for statements made in talk pages, and especially letting editors delete unsourced claims made in talk pages would not be good for the project. There are good reasons why standards for talk pages need to be somewhat looser than for articles. If we gave editors license to delete others' comments willy-nilly, it would create far more problems than it would solve. Talk pages serve as a place for opinionated editors to let off a little steam, making their case for their preferred point of view and arguing against actions they think are unfair. Allowing this valve serves a useful function and minimizes disruption on the encyclopdia. It's one thing to block repetitively disruptive users. It's another thing to bring in standards that editors will be able to use against each other that will lead to chaos. The Wikipedia process requires open and free discussion. Standards that cut off discussion too easily for non-serious infractions risk creating more conflict rather than helping negotiate and reach concensus. Best, -- Shirahadasha 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)