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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Am currently doing a research on autistic social deficits, and am very new to the use of wiki will use talk pages from now on until I have understood exactly how I should work in this medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyjsay ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Please don't put person specific contains. There are lot more Great Historical people from Munger. Requesting you all to develope healthy containt development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshmaster ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I am called arie, and i really found this page helpful for the homework i am doing for school.
Thankyou so very much!
Marie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talktomarie1 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Updated the intro for two things:
Shouldn't be contentious.
Diff: [1]
FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see a section in Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments saying that putting tags (dubious, citation needed, etc.) on somebody else's comments is discouraged or not allowed, and that questions related to source and veracity should be made as reply comments or questions. I just had a user do this to me and I found it really irritating and disruptive to the flow of conversation. This is not the kind of behavior that should be encouraged. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I am a new editor and very much interested in writing articles.I had written before two articles but somehow got deleted.I am getting familiar with Wikipedia rules and regulations.I would also like to write something about Mr.Kent Emmons too.I am a die heart fan of Mr.Kent Emmons.I really would like to write an article and want people to know more about him.Many of my friends are also his die heart fans they insisted me to write something about Mr.Kent Emmons.I hope previously two articles of mine, on Networking Issue and Happiest Moments in Life which got deleted,same way this article wont get deleted.
Rodgerdick ( talk) 05:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello!
I was wondering if an editor can look at the page I was editing and let me know if meets the correct guidelines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Wildlife_Federation
Thank you! Sarahwyo ( talk) 04:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
While we're at it, as in #Putting tags on other people's comments?, I'm wondering whether we need to clarify that people generally shouldn't alter what other editors write.
We have a list of "examples of appropriately editing others' comments." But little is said about what not to do with what other people write.
One editor (not the one alluded to above) has been moving other editor's comments to different sections on a page and deleting subheads. She also removed an informational note. Some of this occurred even after people objected. None of these actions falls under what is listed as acceptable (in other words, the editor wasn't deleting personal attacks, for example).
Maurreen (
talk) 05:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC) She also twice removed other material I had put on talk pages.
Maurreen (
talk) 05:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
What I am advocating is more clarity. I am open as to how to do that, such as wording on WP:TPG or through discussion about more-specific types of edits.
The disputed change to WP:TPG concerns one sentence from " As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section" to " As a rule, do not alter what other editors write. This includes signatures and moving or removing text. Exceptions are described in the next section".
A couple of people are concerned that we need to write for the lowest common denominator. That can be addressed by tweaking to this: " Generally, do not alter what other editors write. This includes signatures and moving or deleting text. Exceptions are described in the next section". Maurreen ( talk) 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose to change:
Not sure if this helps, but I recently deliberately changed a comment on a talkpage recenty to illustrate exactly the point you are all trying to make: diff. We were discussing the (light-hearted) changes we were making to section titles on that talkpage and I decided to illustrate what might happen if an editor changed the text of another editor's comment subtly. Would anyone notice? How would people read the changed text? It is at least a disruptive type of edit if not full blown vandalism at times, IMO; unless, that is, you actually have good reason (copyedit etc) to make the change and discuss the change with the editor who made the comment (or better still, ask them to make the change) -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The clause "and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject" has been re-added to the nutshell. Now we know what it's supposed to mean, but it could be misunderstood - of course talk pages are used to express personal opinions on subjects, but to the extent that those "subjects" relate to the improvement of the encyclopedia. If we want to include this, can we find a more accurate way to phrase it? -- Kotniski ( talk) 06:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
That is probably an improvement. Here are some options (#1 = current, #2 = with SteveMcCluskey's text, #3 and #4 = some more possibilities):
I can't actually like any of them at the moment, but perhaps #3? Johnuniq ( talk) 04:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Revising headings (permanent link here). -- Wavelength ( talk) 02:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:TPO seems pretty clear to me that a "violation" of WP:NOTAFORUM is not sufficient justification to remove someone else's comment from an article talk page, but others disagree. To be clear, we're talking about a single short comment here, not a long disruptive diatribe or something. I propose clarifying this at WP:TPO by adding the following statement to the end of the section:
“ | Just because a comment is arguably inappropriate (e.g., contrary to WP:NOTAFORUM), does not mean it's appropriate to edit or remove it when none of the above criteria applies. | ” |
Comments? Agree or disagree? Thanks! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Per the request on my talk page, here's the reasons why I made this revert:
I wouldn't object to a new bullet-point saying something like "Forum-like posts containing commentary irrelevant to improving the article may be removed." -- Conti| ✉ 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
What about when an editor removes comments essentially because he or she doesn't like them? When the comments are clearly intended to further encyclopedic goals? Maurreen ( talk) 19:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually I suggested it come here, because this is where the policy lives, ANI will get clogged up and is for ANI, not policy, in my opinion. SGGH ping! 01:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss personal views, but does that mean you cannot request factual information not clearly stated in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.19.205 ( talk) 17:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Archives are a huge pain. Archiving should be done sparingly and only when necessary. I am surprised when I read the current threshold is 50KB or 10 items. This leads to excessive archiving.
I have a slow computer - believe me. But I do not have trouble with talk pages over 10 items. This seems to be a solution chasing a problem. I think this limit should at least be increased to 15 or 20 items. A long talk page is no more convenient than clicking through pages of archives. Archives also lead to redundant discussion. Some editors seem to be overzealous about archiving. I don't even know if this issue has been discussed before, because I don't want to check 8 pages of archives! 94.222.118.188 ( talk) 20:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you "mostly see four" may be because this example for MiszaBot sets minthreadsleft = 4. I don't know if that's meant as a recommendation, since a bit further down, the parameter descriptions say that the default value of minthreadsleft is 5. I personally like a larger number, but that really depends on the size of the threads. I wouldn't mind twenty small threads, but five long rambling ones could become messy. Since the bots can't set a minpagesize option (see discussion here) I usually set minthreadsleft = 10.
If we can decide on a number of threads, I'll be bold and change the value on the MiszaBot instructions. It would get people who cut and paste when setting up the bot to follow recommended practice. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I have search the Archives for precedent on this and can't find any specific references. Two examples popped up on my Watchlist tonight.
Unfortunately the WP:TPO guidelines state "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations". So (a) is the consensus that this type of advertising is forbidden and I would be correct to remove it, and (b) if so, would it not be better explicitly to add this to the list? -- TerryE ( talk) 22:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wiki, I recently submitted an article that is up for deletion. Whilst I remove the delete tag I wasn't sure if I placed my response in the correct location so I'm adding it here just in case. Kind regards, Nikola Lashley Sunday 16th May 2010
Dear Wiki, my name is Nikola Lashley, I am a independent journalist and author of this article. Trinidad and Tobago is a developing country and it is difficult to source references for many of the emerging trends and businesses the country is still a little behind the rest of the world. Having read your tutorials I drafted an objective article that I feel would be of interested to wiki readers who require information that gives a broader alternative context to the people,businesses and cultural trends with regards to food. I used the bellainfo user name and email simply to protect my identity and can confirm I am not connected to bella treats. Therefore, would you be kind enough to reconsider the deletion of this article. I have polished the article slightly as suggested. regards, Nikola Infobella ( talk) 05:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes an article's talkpage accumulates a number of templates which relate to external events in the article's history - such as {{ Press}}, {{ Onlinesource}}, {{ High traffic}}, {{ ITN talk}}, {{ EducationalAssignment}}, {{ DYK talk}} and {{ Mainpage date}}. We don't appear to have any consensus or guideline on what should be done with these templates after a certain time has passed and their relevance has declined. Should they:
My view would be to reduce the amount of unneccessary information on a talkpage so that the more pertinent and current information is more visible. If a talkpage becomes too crowded with templates there is an information overload and the value of ALL information on the page becomes diminished. As such I would be in favour of moving such low-value templates which relate to past events into either the archives (first choice) or an {{ EventHistory}} template (second choice). SilkTork * YES! 18:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
05-June-2010: I think when a long topic is split for shorter discussion, the talk-page guideline should suggest using example "===Subtopic X continued===" rather than the awkward phrase "===Arbitrary break===". During some discussions, I have seen that exact phase (as "Arbitrary break"), which of course appears quite bizarre in real article debates, rather than the more logical notion of continuing the same discussion by noting "subtopic continued". I have used the technique many times during the past year, so think the renamed phrase works better for actual talk-pages or in WP:AfDs. - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A conflict has recently broken out at the Talk page of indefinitely banned user Badagnani, over whether it's okay for another user to archive the Talk page without Badagnani's input or permission. I was not involved with the conflict (and I think the editor who was attempting to archive the page may have given up), but it made me wonder if there was any precedent or previous discussion on this matter. On the one hand, it's not anyone's talk page but Badagnani's so in theory nobody should be interfering it in that way; on the other hand, the talk page has become quite long already, and if it just sits there untouched for years while bots continue to add automated notices, it could become really, really long. (But it's always possible Badagnani could petition to return and would want to be able to see the notices left for him.)
So I just wondered if this might have come up before, or if there was a guideline addressing the matter that I couldn't find, or something, and took a chance that this was the best place to ask. Propaniac ( talk) 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else but I can easily remove material from my talk page without "reading" it. As some users who are often embroiled in disputes have a tendency to start quick reverting changes to their talk page (whether or not they leave revert in the edit summary), I don't think we can take this as an indication that the content has genuinely been read. I still maintain that blanking and not archiving also breaks discussion flow and there has been more than one occasion where we've had to spend a considerable time trying to piece together the continually (and selectively) blanked talk page of a disruptive user.-- Crossmr ( talk) 15:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I have recently had another editor persist in moving a comment of mine from the subheading under which I posted it to another subheading of his own creation. This was done in such a way as to change the meaning attributed to it in the discussion. I've added moving another editors comment to the list of things one should not do. If this needs to be clarified, I'm happy to work out the necessary language. Clearly not all moves change the meaning, but in general it doesn't seem to be a good thing to do. Yworo ( talk) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a specific editor in mind who, editing under several accounts and an IP, has over the years used one or two talk pages heavily to put forward their own research. Just go to ANI or? I'm an involved Admin, so can't deal with it myself, but we have at least one talk page and archives dominated by this editor's promotional editing. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed an increasing trend of editors striking out comments that are not their own if they disagree with them, think they are erroneous, etc.
I think that the only person that should be striking comments should be the person that wrote them or someone acting at their explicit request, as striking is typically taken to mean the original writer has disavowed the comment for some reason or another. There are other, more transparent, ways to indicate your disagreement with a comment another editor has made other than striking it and potentially creating ambiguity.
The guideline isn't exactly clear on this as it says "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." I think the exceptions may apply to removing the comment, but not striking it.
Thoughts? – xeno talk 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There are few discussions on Help talk:Archiving a talk page that actually belongs here:
Feel free to discuss and give your opinion on the help talk page. -- Kslotte ( talk) 11:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I have started to write an essay about auto-archiving. Anyone intrested may help me with it. The idea is the write down reasoning and make an almost step-by-step howto.
Do not do major re-writting if you have a different opinion about something. Instead put your critics on the talk page, so I can review your point. -- Kslotte ( talk) 13:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Many moons ago, I created an article on Threshold knowledge. This was speedily deleted, a decision then reversed at deletion review, and a subsequent AfD decided 'keep'. After the deletion review, I added a note to Talk:Threshold knowledge documenting what had happened. Then, after the AfD closed, someone else added the usual oldafdfull template.
Fast forward ~1.5 years. A new editor, User:2tuntony, deleted the sentence I had added about the deletion review. S/he had no prior history with the article or the subject area, but appears to have found the article through me. I reverted the deletion with explanation. 2tuntony re-reverted. Etc. I then pointed out WP:TPO to 2tuntony, who nevertheless deleted the sentence again. I have again reverted the deletion. You can see the edit history for yourselves.
I come seeking opinion on my Talk page usage. Have I used Talk:Threshold knowledge appropriately? Am I citing WP:TPO appropriately? Thanks for your time. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
An editor has pointed out to me that the guidelines differ subtly at two different points:
Now, I guess this is kind of unimportant, but it offends my sense of ... well, something. So... which is correct (i.e. which most accurately reflects current consensus)? And should one be changed?
For what it's worth, I favour "strongly preferred", but having had more than my fair share of run-ins with archiving bots, I sympathise with editors who hate and despise archiving...! TFOWR 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As I was writting my auto-archiving essay, I did run into the need for an archive notification template that suits better for sporadic discussions (discussion is only occasional). I made the Sporadic archiving notice template. I few demonstration implementation can be found on Talk:Gospel of Barnabas, Talk:Regina, Saskatchewan and Talk:Ho Yeow Sun. Comments, copy-editing, tweakings? -- Kslotte ( talk) 18:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the wiki for the talk page still needs to be more clear. I am still not sure if I am doing this right AlexandreaAdams ( talk) 17:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)AlexandreaAdams
How to use a talk page? I am not quite sure, but I had better learn! E. S. V. Leigh ( talk) 03:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It occasionally happens that users attempt to "ban" others (sometimes in so many words, other times saying equivalent things) from their user talk pages. I can't find any reference to this in policy, and the concept doesn't make sense to me. User talk pages are the primary means of editor-to-editor communication (eg for dispute resolution), and are often simply the most practical means of discussing something. Such "bans" can also lead to awkward situations where the "banned user" or their actions are discussed on that talk page, and they can't contribute to the conversation. Finally, there is no obvious means (especially if the "banning" user hasn't provided an email address) to determine whether an indefinite ban might be rescinded or whether the user's changed their mind, etc. So I would prefer to limit this in policy to (third-party) admin or community bans. Users can of course request that someone refrain from contacting them, and the more reasonable the request (eg limited in time and by specified issue, especially if there are obvious alternate venues for discussion), the more the recipient would be expected to respect them (i.e. the more likely breaching would lead to claims of harassment being taken seriously). Rd232 talk 10:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's face it, there are people who poke and prod and try to get under others' skin while staying just short of sanctionable harassment. Banning others from your talk page often comes across as childish; continuing to insert yourself where you know you're not welcome is dickish. Just make it clear that people are absolutely free to delete any unwanted comments from their talk page. The guideline already says "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." (I'd get rid of the "though archiving is preferred" that follows.) Perhaps add a sentence saying that if you feel someone is being provocative the best course is to silently remove their comments without engaging in return. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There are numerous reasons why users need to post comments on user talk pages, even if the users are in conflict. Notifications of deletions and ANI threads, for example. Also, issues that concern personal editing, like marking all edits as minor, belong on user talk pages not article talk pages. If user talk pages didn't serve a necessary purpose we could simply delete all of them. Talk page banning becomes a game in and of itself. I've even seen where Editor A bans Editor B from posting to his own talk page, but then posts to Editor B's talk page. It is entirely permissible to ignore or delete messages on your talk page, and existing rules about harassment and hounding cover those behaviors. Except in extreme cases (which are probably better handled some other way), talk page banning is inappropriate. Will Beback talk 07:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Fully support it. If one editor is being a dick and harassing another editor they have every right to tell them to stay off their page. There is absolutely NOTHING that other users needs to do on their page. If an AN/I notification needs to be delivered, they can leave a note with their message on AN/I saying "Can someone notify this user, I've been asked to stay off his talk page". If they are nominating one of their articles for speedy deletion, they can leave it in the edit summary, or not. There is no requirement that editors be notified of speedy deletion requests. I've repeatedly seen several editors continually poking (while not necessarily violating rules) other editors via their talk page. Getting involved in discussions that have nothing to do with them while making sniping, yet civil, comments.-- Crossmr ( talk) 06:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion for awhile and have been debating whether or not to add my own views. Ultimately I've come to the conclusion that what I could add here probably would be helpful in the larger view.
I've personally "banned" a very small number of editors from my own talk page, and later my entire userspace as a last resort after having been wikihounded by a small "group" of individuals. Ultimately, they still refused to stop the wikihounding behaviour, and unfortunately it took repeatedly bringing the issues to the attention of the community (via way of AN/I etc), and ultimately ArbCom numerous times over the course of about 15 months (the wikihounding originally began on May 26, 2009 and the last ArbCom motion was September 4, 2010) before the wikihounding mostly** stopped. Now, my case might be an extreme example, but it shows that while the practice of "banning" another editor from one's talk page/userspace is more or less accepted by the community, without the backing of the community, it still won't stop an individual from continuing to engage in harassment type behaviours if they are determined to continue.
**I use the term "mostly" because it later moved to off-wiki harassment, including contacting my place of work "[Tothwolf] is harassing me/others on Wikipedia while at work" (which I was later told is a typical "false victimisation" tactic used by people engaging in cyberstalking-type behaviours), as well as contacting, harassing, and even threatening other people I know via email, IM, etc, which ArbCom claimed they have no jurisdiction over off-wiki behaviour. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 11:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What I can tell you from first hand experience is that the community did not act right away to the wikihounding and harassment behaviours I was the target of. Some of that might have been my fault as I probably provided more information than necessary and I initially didn't show that others had previously been similarly targeted. Had the community stepped in immediately and said "this is not acceptable behaviour" things would have been resolved much faster.
Ultimately I think there is a much larger problem by in which a small number of editors have figured out several ways to game the system and barely remain "civil", all the while engaging in wikihounding and harassment type behaviours. If this were addressed then there likely would never be a reason to "ban" another editor from one's talk page in this way.
When I began to document what the individuals who targeted me had done to others, I found that most of their other "targets" eventually just "gave up" and left Wikipedia, with some of them becoming highly critical and jaded over the community failing to help them. I too felt the community failed me (and I said as much in at least one AN/I discussion and the initial ArbCom case), but I guess I was just too stubborn to "give up" and "disappear" from Wikipedia (although doing so probably would have prevented the off-wiki harassment). -- Tothwolf ( talk) 13:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I added real, legitimate information to wiki, only to have it deleted and then scolded by a bot? Which overlords determine what is acceptable information and which should be screened? That is just plain wrong, and against the spirit of the founders of wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.111.191 ( talk) 03:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors' bad attitudes and their bots push new contributers away, as does the complexity added by those same editors and bots. This is temporary you are not going to turn me into a permanent editor by berating me as if I know all the complex and long winded guidelines and rules. The Style Guide for Wikipedia is more of a Wikipedia Governance, 100 Book, Encyclopedia for Wikipedia.
First, start with making Governance and Style Guides only editable by Wikipedia Foundation staff.
Second, reduce the number of pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.218.73 ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 December 2010
Definition of "editorial privilege": the authority to use the policy covered by "Own Comments" ( WP:REDACT), rather than "Others' Comments" ( WP:TPOC).
Editor A can copy Editor B's errors in judgement into his own post, and then Editor A has editorial privilege over Editor B's content.
Where Editor A copies Editor B's errors in judgement, Editor B retains editorial privilege over Editor B's content.
I don't see anything in the policy that clarifies this case, although the examples in WP:REDACT for "Placeholder" suggest Rule B.
Thanks,
RB
66.217.118.38 (
talk) 01:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Neither A nor B, but actually (most of the time)
I thank the respondents for succinct and informative responses. RB 66.217.118.205 ( talk) 16:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I'd alert people to an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether there will be a global size limit for user talk pages, so that they load more easily. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Hi I want to upload a picture of J A Rynd who was my Grand grand Uncle and I have a picture of him taken by my Grandfather Walter Harold Murray on a glass plate during the visit of King George V to Kingstown in 1911. He is in full court dress? Questionmarkie ( talk) 19:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Following this discussion at WP:ANI, I'm proposing to clarify the existing practice and policy in relation to user talk pages.
Core proposal
User talk pages are a key means of inter-editor communication, and to that end users should ensure that their user talk page does not unnecessarily inhibit accessibility. In designing their user talk pages, users should take into account that some editors have slower internet connections, older equipment, or may be editing using a device with a small screen. User talk pages should therefore be designed and managed (preferably through archiving) to ensure they remain at a manageable size and length, and not contain extensive content better suited to user pages or user sub pages, or other venues such as article talk pages or wikiproject pages. Administrators have a particular duty to ensure their talk pages are easily accessible to all editors.
Optional amendment 1
"Good practice is to keep the wikitext of the user talk page under 150k, avoid excessive image content, and keep the beginning of the discussion section visible on an average-sized screen without scrolling." - proposed to be added before the last sentence of the core proposal.
Rd232 talk 01:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, this guideline now says: "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 70 KB, or has more than 15 main sections." Allowing admin intervention at 150k seems appropriate, for user talk pages; I personally don't see a need to say more than that but YMMV. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Under WP:TPO the first bullet is "If you have their permission." which is then followed by a list of criteria. This is ambiguous, and could be taken two ways.
Which is the correct interpretation, and please could it be clarified. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
how do i make an article
so want i tell about my early life right then i add pic how though confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neshia Capblara ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to change the title of this page from " Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines" to " Wikipedia:Discussion guidelines". A recent discussion at WT:AFD showed that there was some confusion over whether
this guideline applies to discussion everywhere, or only in the "Talk" namespace. The third sentence of this page currently reads "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." We should make this more clear by changing the title. Jujutacular talk 19:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
If there is no objection, I will move the page tomorrow. Jujutacular talk 05:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Is the policy different than about 2 years ago? I thought you can delete stuff on your own talk page with VERY few exceptions? Has there been a discussion about this or does my memory serve me incorrectly? Thanks, Brain Before Life ( talk) 04:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Johnuniq, thanks for your feedback. I want you to take a look at this guideline page: WP:Canvassing and see how complete and nicely done that it is. It has a very friendly style, it's concise, it's easy to read and understand, etc... I think every article for a WP:guideline should strive to serve the reader, namely a Wikipedian who wants to know what community consensus is on a relevant policy. Think about it from a business perspective, and imagine that the page is a product/good/service and that the reader is a "customer" and we're aspiring for providing value to the customer by delivering a great quality product/good/service. The very fact that this page "failed me" as a reader is enough motivation to want me to improve it. My first idea I have for this article is more autonomy within each section. A reader should not have to read the whole page if they want a narrower understanding. This page covers a lot more stuff than the WP:Canvassing article, so I think each section should be a complete, whole unit of information. I believe that the top 20% of the article should be devoted to guidelines which are applicable to ALL talk pages of Wikipedia, and then there should exist more narrow subsets of organized information pertaining to subdivisions. That way if I wanted to know the policy on a user talk page (i.e. is it fine to delete others comments) then I can just read the top 20% of the article to understand the guidelines which apply to ALL talk pages, and then click on a subsection in the contents box to see a complete, autonomous section which is clear, informative, and has a nice friendly tone as the WP:Canvassing article has done an excellent job attaining. Do you agree with my comments of how this article needs to be improved? Do you agree with my recommendation or are there some drawbacks which a second set of eyes may find? I think this is definitely a perfect opportunity for me to share my skills and improve (for the reader's benefit and therefore the community's benefit) an important functionality inside Wikipedia. Thanks, Brain Before Life ( talk) 02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I undid my edit. I want to suggest 3 or 4 changes to this page later this month and try to make my vision for this page more appealing. Until then, I encourage others to read the page "as is" with a critical eye and red pen, figuratively. This page could use a lot of work. Brain Before Life ( talk) 09:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
The English content used on this page is dire. Please let somebody who is proficient in the English language proof-read the content displayed. 131.231.197.126 ( talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
In this Wikipedia page it states that the September 2010 quake was 10km deep but reporters on t.v. have been constantly saying it was 33km deep so which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.178.152 ( talk) 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Rather frequently I have seen the use of a reflist for an article talk page. Sometimes three or more on a talk page. One can not refer to cite numbers because any archive shifts them all about. Ought this page state that references given in a proposed piece of text be done as "nowiki" so that the full cite is apparent and does not make strange reference lists? Such a guideline would make following "suggested sources" a great deal easier in my opinion. Other opinions? Collect ( talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
Reflist-talk|close=1}}
. The template formats the reflist with a title and box. The |close=
closes the list so refs above it don't get parsed below it. -—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 22:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)There is a photo of a sculpture (made of rock salt) depicting the late Polish (died 1935) Marshal and Prime Minister Josef Pilsudski [seen in the Wikipedia entry page for Pilsudski]. The photo credits state the photo may be reproduced as credit is given, in writing, to the photographer who took the photo of the sculpture. The photograph states it was taken, in two separate places, "by me." The photographers actual name is not stated; whoever submitted the photo, and the copyright info, must have done so assuming his or her name would be inserted by whoever reviews Wikipedia submissions (if anyone).
Thus there is a flaw in the Wikipedia design re: contributions of visual images [e.g. photographs] when contributors mistakenly state they have copyright to be attributed "from me" rather than their actual name. ~ Submitting a comment such as this is extremely challenging. It states "sign your posts by typing four tildes Akiva K Segan ( talk) 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)" but it does not state where and how to do that. I'll just do what it states to do: ~ ~ ~ ~ There is no information provided as to where this posting will be seen; it says this is a "talk page" but there is no info on how to access the talk page. Will see what happens.
Along the right side of the main article body, four photos of the shooting scene are vertically arranged along with a caption at the bottom; the caption seems to be part of the photo, meaning the text cannot be highlighted/copied as text-formatted content would be.
In the photo caption, the fallen police officer is identified as Washington, D.C., police officer "Thomas Delaharity"; I believe this is incorrect. The article body correctly identifies the officer as "Thomas Delahanty." To correct this, the photo will need to be edited and reposted.
TonyRony ( talk) 23:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
At an earlier discussion there was a consensus that there is to much archiving. I was then bold an changed the archiving thresholds to 70KB in size and 15 section (or threads). Old values was 50KB and 10 section. The main reason for this change is mainly that current computers and browser can handle larger pages without problems. There has been some edit warring between the new proposed values and the old ones. Do we get a consensus that values 70K and 15 sections is the one to use at section "When to condense pages"? -- Kslotte ( talk) 12:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
There's been some controversy over how to redirect the page Luther, and at some point, the redirect for the Talk Page went to a different article than the redirect. I changed the talk redirect to match the article redirect, but it seems to me that the talk pages for redirects should NOT be redirected themselves. What's the policy on this? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
#REDIRECT
directive will only actually cause a redirect if it's the first line on the page. One of its effects is to suppress normal display of the remainder of the page, although the page content is processed so that the page may be categorised. See
Vulcan Halt railway station for example; this works best if you have
Special:Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Show hidden categories turned on, to reveal the cats added by {{
R with possibilities}}
and {{
R printworthy}}
. Curiously, this general suppression of the display does not occur with a diff,
see here. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)deleting this content was a mistake :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolifofo ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like a clarification of the following
"Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."
The list that follows appears to contain several examples of situations where it is OK to make specific edits even if someone objects. For example:
Fixing an attempt to fake a signature: It seems that this should be fixed even if the signature-faker objects.
Removing prohibited material / Removing harmful posts: Should I leave it in if the person who posted the prohibited/harmful material objects to its removal?.
Archiving material not relevant to improving the article: Again, should a "don't touch my off-topic material!" objection be honored?
So is the list a list of specific situations where an edit is allowed (with care and subject to policy) even if someone objects? Or is the "stop if there is any objection" an absolute requirement to not fix a fake signature, etc. if anyone objects?
A related question: Should I read "...normally stop if there is any objection" as telling me to not change, say, the indentation level if the person who posted the comment objects, or should I read it as giving him permission to object to fixing the indent on comments he didn't write on the behalf of other editors who have not themselves voiced an objection? Guy Macon ( talk) 19:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I recently struck the comments of an indef-blocked sock puppet [10], [11]. This is a practice that I've seen used before, but upon reflection I came here looking for the appropriate guideline to make sure I wasn't over stepping. Reviewing WP:TPO, it seems that a weak argument could be made that this is acceptable based on Removing prohibited material, Removing harmful posts, or Refactoring for relevance. But that argument is indeed weak. Because of this, I would like to ask for clarification so that I can understand whether this not unheard of practice falls within wikipedia guidelines. Thank you, aprock ( talk) 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it completely acceptable to re-arrange talk page discussions if the only thing I am doing is correcting indents of specific users and adding outdents? Occasionally, these get off leaving the discussion hard to follow. Ryan Vesey ( talk) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Twice I tried to delete the following vandalism from the talk page of the Rubyfruit Jungle article: [14]. Both times I was reverted and told that this guideline prohibited such deletion. The comment is a distasteful joke about vaginas left by an anonymous IP address as the first post to the talk page. It doesn't relate to any content of the article and is potentially offensive to editors who actually want to use the talk page for discussion. It is a textbook case of vandalism per WP:Vandalism: "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page". I don't understand how this guideline prohibits me from deleting obvious vandalism like this. If it does, the wording needs to be changed. Kaldari ( talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
As per
I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, registered users are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.
Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.
In light of this, please change "registered and anonymous users" -> "registered and unregistered users". Thanks. 113.197.147.212 ( talk) 13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes WP:HUMAN and I live the sadness in front of my work. (read http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:70.29.168.231&redirect=no) Good luck -- 70.29.168.231 ( talk) 01:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Great idea! I didn't even realize we had a violation on our hands in such a simple term! 96.48.109.20 ( talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I find bold comments on my personal talk page very distracting. Is it OK to change the font after a comment has been read or is this disruptive editing? An experienced editor is edit warring because I changed the font from bold to normal for his comment on my talk page, but I consider this a trivial change. QuentinUK ( talk) 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how to comment correctly but I would like to put on record that this is the best general knowledge resource available on the internet and it should be properly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.129.117 ( talk) 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I added a section to the 2011 Reno Air Races crash discussion page, proposing that the The Galloping Ghost airplane article be merged into it. The discussion section title was, appropriately, "Merge The Galloping Ghost airplane into 2011 Reno Air Races crash".
After a number of people had commented, and voted for and against, someone changed the title to "Merge The Galloping Ghost airplane & Jimmy Leeward into 2011 Reno Air Races crash". No mention of this change was made in the body of the discussion, and in fact it took several days for me to notice. I found this objectionable, because my original proposal had been rewritten without notice, changing the meaning of my and other editors.
I've objected to the editor in question, but when I went looking for Wikipedia policy backing, I was surprised to find none.
I would like to suggest a policy on changing the title/meaning of a proposal. At the very least, the changer should clearly add a statement to the discussion that he has changed the title. I would suggest, however, that more restrictions would be warranted, and perhaps even the title/meaning of a proposal should not be changed without the permission of the original author. -- Dan Griscom ( talk) 23:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand what Talk is, so why is it important to combine the term like slang and say Discussion is a "Talk" page, when Talk is Talk and Discussion is Discussion. Any 'help please' would seriously be some good help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This comment from the Talk Page Guidelines article:
It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above.
leaves too much wiggle room. It nullifies the previous comments about not deleting others talk page comments in the minds of those who want to remove argument about the editing of the main articles. It's meant to keep everyone on the same page, that being the desired slant of the article. Just call it a rant and be done with it. I've seen time and time again where legitimate talk page comments are removed this way. 4.246.207.192 ( talk) 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I have slightly reworded the guideline text to forestall this misunderstanding. To construe the phrase "attack other users by naming them in the heading" as if it implied that any instance of "naming" automatically constituted an "attack" is, of course, absurdly against common sense, but the grammar of the wording as it stood indeed made this misunderstanding possible, on an extremely narrow legalistic reading. (The absurdity becomes obvious when you consider that this would force us to believe that a heading of "Thanks to XYZ for their wonderful edits" would automatically constitute an "attack" on XYZ!) – What the guideline was always meant to express, and has always been understood as expressing, was that you shouldn't include a user's name together with an attack on them. I've changed the wording to "making an attack against a named user in a heading". Neutral topic titles of the "Recent edits by XYZ" type have always been used widely, and have never caused any objections before Antidiskriminator started going round protesting against them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I note that the improvement made by Unscintillating, who has now reverted to his one-day-long "stable" version, consists of merely replacing "by" with "and" [22]. His sentence is still very ambiguous as I explained above. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 15:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I see I have fallen into a self-referential multi-layered issue, in which there are now two edit comments with my name in them is an edit comment with my name in it, where the heading might be construed to imply an attack. My desire to correct the record was not matched by attention to the wording in the header.
Unscintillating (
talk) 16:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the proposal should be brought here in clearer form (with before-and-after text and a quick statement of the difference, or with strike through and underline to show the difference). Currently, the text for "Never use headings to attack other users" seems to have been changed like this: using headings to attack other users and by naming them in the heading is especially egregious. That change is unhelpful because, as explained above, it is necessary and desirable at noticeboards like ANI to use clear yet neutral heading such as "Recent edits by User:Example". By contrast, also as noted above, it is rarely helpful to name an editor in a heading on an article talk page (there, the heading should be something like "Recent edits"). I suppose "and naming them" could be regarded as weak English, but it makes the point that a heading like "Recent nonsense added by User:Example" is an especially egregious attack. I'm not sure of the best way forward, but the solution needs to distinguish between general practice at an article talk page and at a noticeboard. Further, there probably are occasions when naming an editor in a neutral heading on an article talk page is not an attack.
Johnuniq (
talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Fut.Perf.'s rewording clarifying the major issue; reverted by Unscintillating over concerns of what "named users" could mean (see discussion above). Clarification added by me to a different bullet, reverted with a procedural reason by Unscintillating. Yet another clarification [23] by User:Gerardw with a wikilink added by me [24] was also reverted. Goodbye and good luck. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 11:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
[25] and [26]. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 09:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Proposed:
- Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand may be removed.
- Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts which both clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand and are disruptive may be removed with community consensus.
I used to try doing it between third parties, and results were mixed at best, and that was in a calmer time. I've since learned it is almost never (never say never, lest an impish deity make you eat your words) a good idea. Inevitably, the practice inflames passions and distracts editors, which is precisely the opposite of the goal of civility and personal attack policies. We don't need more invitations to people arguing about civility on Principal.
— User:Tznkai 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ignore, or report. And never, ever edit war to hat or remove personal attacks.
— User:KillerChihuahua 01:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
People REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY don't like having their comments redacted, and I haven't ever seen one case where someone "redacting" comments, in the name of civility, actually led to an increase of civility. What happens is whoever redacts is piled on, dismissed as an agent of the thought police by whoever's side you censored, heralded as a hero by the opposing side, and now you end up with a meta-debate on whether such actions are appropriate, you end up at ANI, then warning, blocks and desysops are issued. It never stops drama, and if the goal was to bring the heat down, then you've just shot yourself in the foot because you ensured that the heat would rise up to white-hot levels. Yes people should try to be civil and focus on the actual problem, rather than saying "that's just retarded" or similar. However sometimes, there are behaviours and viewpoints that are "just retarded", and it's perfectly appropriate to call a spade a spade. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. But WP:CIVIL isn't one either.
— User:Headbomb 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I recall that there used to be an admonition not to insert replies into the middle of a comment by another editor.
In this example, user:B's signature is repeated throughout the commentary, but user:A's appears only at the end. The rationale for prohibiting was that it becomes muddled. However I don't see anything about it in this guidelines anymore, nor can I find any discussion in the archives. Was it moved or deleted, or am I misremembering? Will Beback talk 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Should this guideline mention available remedies such as WP:CRD for material that makes it into edit history summaries via the headings? Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 12:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
how to get the prove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsenpey ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Should the existing
- Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.
be changed to the proposed
- Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand may be removed.
Gerardw ( talk) 12:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We need to modify this guideline in such a way that an editor can start a poll with a defined polling process (such as to gauge the support for different versions of the lead paragraph) and then have authority to maintain those rules in a given section of the talk page. For example, such polls for support are more managable and resolve more quickly when oppose votes are disallowed. However, there is always some (l)user who refuses to abide by the rules clearly stated in advance. It should be permissible to remove those !votes from the poll, and there should be a canned warning which could be put on the violator's talk page warning that ignoring the pre-stated polling process is disruptive and as such may be reverted. The editor who started the poll should not be tasked with preserving the disruptive added content. The editor who violated the polling process should be responsible for expressing their opposition in another way, such as adding their own proposal and supporting that, not the creator of the poll. This M.O. is frequently used by editors to disrupt polls that they think will go against them, even though polls are only used for data gathering and the result would require another level of discussion before implementation. Yworo ( talk) 01:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
As an example of where "oppose" votes are counter-prodcutive, imagine a poll to determine editor support (not opposition) for specific wordings of the lead sentence. It could be constructed with the following rules.
Multiple choices are offered for the lead sentence. Each editor may support one or more choices. If an editor supports none of the choices, they add a proposal rather then making an "oppose" vote. The value of such a method is that on a contentious article, a talk subpage could be created for the poll. The poll could run continuously, with the lead sentence being changed whenever the proposal with the most weight changes (assuming all variants are permitted by Wikipedia rules). However, such a poll is easily disrupted by editors making oppose votes rather than a new proposal. The poll would look like this. The ordered lists automatically count supporters, but only if the other editors, out of respect, observe the stated methods and goals of the poll. This doesn't actually ever happen, so the originator either needs some way to enforce the polling structure and/or ignoring the polling structure needs to be defined as disruptive and something that can be reverted by the originator or anyone else who notices the violation of the polling definition. There is always another place or way to express or discuss the nature of one's opposition. Those who disrupt polls choose to disrupt polls rather than comment elsewhere as provided for.
First section states type of poll being conducted, rules for voting. In this case:
All reasons against any proposal should be discussed here, not within the polling structure. Show support for existing proposals or add a new proposal. Do not add "oppose" votes to the poll.
Look at Talk:C. S. Lewis. The editors who ruined the poll as I set it up made no proposal of their own. If they had, it would have quickly gained more support than the other proposals. The editors responding in a disruptive manner actually impeded the progress to their own goal by doing so. This ain't right. If the polling method were to be sincerely tried, I am sure it would be found superior in the situations for which it is optimal. But the current "rules" as interpreted by those who wish to disrupt prevent this method from even being tried once. Yworo ( talk) 04:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
For those wanting to run various types of poll without disruption, I suggest running the poll in your user space, which you are allowed to control, then moving the poll to article talk space as a sub-page when the poll is complete, or at least far enough along that the process has been accepted and is expected to continue to be followed. Yworo ( talk) 23:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
In reaction to the number of recent posts here about articles, I've WP:BRD reformatted the top of the page to reduce the "wall of text" look in the hope the "Don't post general questions" text stands out more. Gerardw ( talk) 10:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently the guidelines read
"Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving."
and
"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred."
I would suggest changing the first statement to read "many experienced editors" rather that "most editors" simply because the "most editors" claim is factually untrue. A quick look at a couple of dozen user talk pages clearly shows that most editors do neither. I haven't done an exhaustive survey of random user talk ages, but I doubt that among the minority that move/remove comments archivers outnumber deleters.Withdrawn. See below.
The second statement claims that archiving is preferred. Has this semi-policy been determined by consensus? I would argue that the policy is that neither is preferred; it is a choice that is up to the user. That being said, a variation on the first statement would seem to be appropriate here. It is helpful to know that, although it is your choice, a lot of experienced editors have chosen archiving over deleting. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
For the third and last time I ask, where is the evidence that "archiving is preferred" other than the personal opinion of whoever inserted the text into this page? Was it discussed? Was a consensus reached? Is it a logical extension of some other existing policy that trumps the policy that the user can freely delete anything he wishes from his user page? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I am criticizing the wording. If I was challenging the process I would have said so. I don't give my tacit consensus for it to be there. I have been trying to have a discussion, to little effect. Clearly asking again and again if anybody knows any reason why archiving is preferred is not working, so please, tell me the magic words that will somehow convey the fact that I am challenging the statement "archiving is preferred" and will convey that rather simple concept in such a way that somebody, anybody, will discuss whether archiving is preferred and why they think so. Did I mention that I am trying to discuss whether archiving is preferred? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Gerardw has a problem with me listing banned users. Thoughts? CTJF83 21:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
( ←) I'd suggest changing
to
This would seem to achieve both Ctfj83's goal and adding a mention and mine preference for keeping policy pages as compact as possible. Gerardw ( talk) 02:30, 11 December 2011 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Am currently doing a research on autistic social deficits, and am very new to the use of wiki will use talk pages from now on until I have understood exactly how I should work in this medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyjsay ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Please don't put person specific contains. There are lot more Great Historical people from Munger. Requesting you all to develope healthy containt development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshmaster ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC) I am called arie, and i really found this page helpful for the homework i am doing for school.
Thankyou so very much!
Marie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talktomarie1 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Updated the intro for two things:
Shouldn't be contentious.
Diff: [1]
FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see a section in Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments saying that putting tags (dubious, citation needed, etc.) on somebody else's comments is discouraged or not allowed, and that questions related to source and veracity should be made as reply comments or questions. I just had a user do this to me and I found it really irritating and disruptive to the flow of conversation. This is not the kind of behavior that should be encouraged. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I am a new editor and very much interested in writing articles.I had written before two articles but somehow got deleted.I am getting familiar with Wikipedia rules and regulations.I would also like to write something about Mr.Kent Emmons too.I am a die heart fan of Mr.Kent Emmons.I really would like to write an article and want people to know more about him.Many of my friends are also his die heart fans they insisted me to write something about Mr.Kent Emmons.I hope previously two articles of mine, on Networking Issue and Happiest Moments in Life which got deleted,same way this article wont get deleted.
Rodgerdick ( talk) 05:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello!
I was wondering if an editor can look at the page I was editing and let me know if meets the correct guidelines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Wildlife_Federation
Thank you! Sarahwyo ( talk) 04:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
While we're at it, as in #Putting tags on other people's comments?, I'm wondering whether we need to clarify that people generally shouldn't alter what other editors write.
We have a list of "examples of appropriately editing others' comments." But little is said about what not to do with what other people write.
One editor (not the one alluded to above) has been moving other editor's comments to different sections on a page and deleting subheads. She also removed an informational note. Some of this occurred even after people objected. None of these actions falls under what is listed as acceptable (in other words, the editor wasn't deleting personal attacks, for example).
Maurreen (
talk) 05:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC) She also twice removed other material I had put on talk pages.
Maurreen (
talk) 05:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
What I am advocating is more clarity. I am open as to how to do that, such as wording on WP:TPG or through discussion about more-specific types of edits.
The disputed change to WP:TPG concerns one sentence from " As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section" to " As a rule, do not alter what other editors write. This includes signatures and moving or removing text. Exceptions are described in the next section".
A couple of people are concerned that we need to write for the lowest common denominator. That can be addressed by tweaking to this: " Generally, do not alter what other editors write. This includes signatures and moving or deleting text. Exceptions are described in the next section". Maurreen ( talk) 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose to change:
Not sure if this helps, but I recently deliberately changed a comment on a talkpage recenty to illustrate exactly the point you are all trying to make: diff. We were discussing the (light-hearted) changes we were making to section titles on that talkpage and I decided to illustrate what might happen if an editor changed the text of another editor's comment subtly. Would anyone notice? How would people read the changed text? It is at least a disruptive type of edit if not full blown vandalism at times, IMO; unless, that is, you actually have good reason (copyedit etc) to make the change and discuss the change with the editor who made the comment (or better still, ask them to make the change) -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The clause "and should not be used to express personal opinions on a subject" has been re-added to the nutshell. Now we know what it's supposed to mean, but it could be misunderstood - of course talk pages are used to express personal opinions on subjects, but to the extent that those "subjects" relate to the improvement of the encyclopedia. If we want to include this, can we find a more accurate way to phrase it? -- Kotniski ( talk) 06:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
That is probably an improvement. Here are some options (#1 = current, #2 = with SteveMcCluskey's text, #3 and #4 = some more possibilities):
I can't actually like any of them at the moment, but perhaps #3? Johnuniq ( talk) 04:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Revising headings (permanent link here). -- Wavelength ( talk) 02:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:TPO seems pretty clear to me that a "violation" of WP:NOTAFORUM is not sufficient justification to remove someone else's comment from an article talk page, but others disagree. To be clear, we're talking about a single short comment here, not a long disruptive diatribe or something. I propose clarifying this at WP:TPO by adding the following statement to the end of the section:
“ | Just because a comment is arguably inappropriate (e.g., contrary to WP:NOTAFORUM), does not mean it's appropriate to edit or remove it when none of the above criteria applies. | ” |
Comments? Agree or disagree? Thanks! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Per the request on my talk page, here's the reasons why I made this revert:
I wouldn't object to a new bullet-point saying something like "Forum-like posts containing commentary irrelevant to improving the article may be removed." -- Conti| ✉ 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
What about when an editor removes comments essentially because he or she doesn't like them? When the comments are clearly intended to further encyclopedic goals? Maurreen ( talk) 19:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually I suggested it come here, because this is where the policy lives, ANI will get clogged up and is for ANI, not policy, in my opinion. SGGH ping! 01:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss personal views, but does that mean you cannot request factual information not clearly stated in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.19.205 ( talk) 17:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Archives are a huge pain. Archiving should be done sparingly and only when necessary. I am surprised when I read the current threshold is 50KB or 10 items. This leads to excessive archiving.
I have a slow computer - believe me. But I do not have trouble with talk pages over 10 items. This seems to be a solution chasing a problem. I think this limit should at least be increased to 15 or 20 items. A long talk page is no more convenient than clicking through pages of archives. Archives also lead to redundant discussion. Some editors seem to be overzealous about archiving. I don't even know if this issue has been discussed before, because I don't want to check 8 pages of archives! 94.222.118.188 ( talk) 20:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you "mostly see four" may be because this example for MiszaBot sets minthreadsleft = 4. I don't know if that's meant as a recommendation, since a bit further down, the parameter descriptions say that the default value of minthreadsleft is 5. I personally like a larger number, but that really depends on the size of the threads. I wouldn't mind twenty small threads, but five long rambling ones could become messy. Since the bots can't set a minpagesize option (see discussion here) I usually set minthreadsleft = 10.
If we can decide on a number of threads, I'll be bold and change the value on the MiszaBot instructions. It would get people who cut and paste when setting up the bot to follow recommended practice. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I have search the Archives for precedent on this and can't find any specific references. Two examples popped up on my Watchlist tonight.
Unfortunately the WP:TPO guidelines state "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations". So (a) is the consensus that this type of advertising is forbidden and I would be correct to remove it, and (b) if so, would it not be better explicitly to add this to the list? -- TerryE ( talk) 22:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wiki, I recently submitted an article that is up for deletion. Whilst I remove the delete tag I wasn't sure if I placed my response in the correct location so I'm adding it here just in case. Kind regards, Nikola Lashley Sunday 16th May 2010
Dear Wiki, my name is Nikola Lashley, I am a independent journalist and author of this article. Trinidad and Tobago is a developing country and it is difficult to source references for many of the emerging trends and businesses the country is still a little behind the rest of the world. Having read your tutorials I drafted an objective article that I feel would be of interested to wiki readers who require information that gives a broader alternative context to the people,businesses and cultural trends with regards to food. I used the bellainfo user name and email simply to protect my identity and can confirm I am not connected to bella treats. Therefore, would you be kind enough to reconsider the deletion of this article. I have polished the article slightly as suggested. regards, Nikola Infobella ( talk) 05:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes an article's talkpage accumulates a number of templates which relate to external events in the article's history - such as {{ Press}}, {{ Onlinesource}}, {{ High traffic}}, {{ ITN talk}}, {{ EducationalAssignment}}, {{ DYK talk}} and {{ Mainpage date}}. We don't appear to have any consensus or guideline on what should be done with these templates after a certain time has passed and their relevance has declined. Should they:
My view would be to reduce the amount of unneccessary information on a talkpage so that the more pertinent and current information is more visible. If a talkpage becomes too crowded with templates there is an information overload and the value of ALL information on the page becomes diminished. As such I would be in favour of moving such low-value templates which relate to past events into either the archives (first choice) or an {{ EventHistory}} template (second choice). SilkTork * YES! 18:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
05-June-2010: I think when a long topic is split for shorter discussion, the talk-page guideline should suggest using example "===Subtopic X continued===" rather than the awkward phrase "===Arbitrary break===". During some discussions, I have seen that exact phase (as "Arbitrary break"), which of course appears quite bizarre in real article debates, rather than the more logical notion of continuing the same discussion by noting "subtopic continued". I have used the technique many times during the past year, so think the renamed phrase works better for actual talk-pages or in WP:AfDs. - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A conflict has recently broken out at the Talk page of indefinitely banned user Badagnani, over whether it's okay for another user to archive the Talk page without Badagnani's input or permission. I was not involved with the conflict (and I think the editor who was attempting to archive the page may have given up), but it made me wonder if there was any precedent or previous discussion on this matter. On the one hand, it's not anyone's talk page but Badagnani's so in theory nobody should be interfering it in that way; on the other hand, the talk page has become quite long already, and if it just sits there untouched for years while bots continue to add automated notices, it could become really, really long. (But it's always possible Badagnani could petition to return and would want to be able to see the notices left for him.)
So I just wondered if this might have come up before, or if there was a guideline addressing the matter that I couldn't find, or something, and took a chance that this was the best place to ask. Propaniac ( talk) 17:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else but I can easily remove material from my talk page without "reading" it. As some users who are often embroiled in disputes have a tendency to start quick reverting changes to their talk page (whether or not they leave revert in the edit summary), I don't think we can take this as an indication that the content has genuinely been read. I still maintain that blanking and not archiving also breaks discussion flow and there has been more than one occasion where we've had to spend a considerable time trying to piece together the continually (and selectively) blanked talk page of a disruptive user.-- Crossmr ( talk) 15:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I have recently had another editor persist in moving a comment of mine from the subheading under which I posted it to another subheading of his own creation. This was done in such a way as to change the meaning attributed to it in the discussion. I've added moving another editors comment to the list of things one should not do. If this needs to be clarified, I'm happy to work out the necessary language. Clearly not all moves change the meaning, but in general it doesn't seem to be a good thing to do. Yworo ( talk) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a specific editor in mind who, editing under several accounts and an IP, has over the years used one or two talk pages heavily to put forward their own research. Just go to ANI or? I'm an involved Admin, so can't deal with it myself, but we have at least one talk page and archives dominated by this editor's promotional editing. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed an increasing trend of editors striking out comments that are not their own if they disagree with them, think they are erroneous, etc.
I think that the only person that should be striking comments should be the person that wrote them or someone acting at their explicit request, as striking is typically taken to mean the original writer has disavowed the comment for some reason or another. There are other, more transparent, ways to indicate your disagreement with a comment another editor has made other than striking it and potentially creating ambiguity.
The guideline isn't exactly clear on this as it says "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." I think the exceptions may apply to removing the comment, but not striking it.
Thoughts? – xeno talk 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There are few discussions on Help talk:Archiving a talk page that actually belongs here:
Feel free to discuss and give your opinion on the help talk page. -- Kslotte ( talk) 11:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I have started to write an essay about auto-archiving. Anyone intrested may help me with it. The idea is the write down reasoning and make an almost step-by-step howto.
Do not do major re-writting if you have a different opinion about something. Instead put your critics on the talk page, so I can review your point. -- Kslotte ( talk) 13:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Many moons ago, I created an article on Threshold knowledge. This was speedily deleted, a decision then reversed at deletion review, and a subsequent AfD decided 'keep'. After the deletion review, I added a note to Talk:Threshold knowledge documenting what had happened. Then, after the AfD closed, someone else added the usual oldafdfull template.
Fast forward ~1.5 years. A new editor, User:2tuntony, deleted the sentence I had added about the deletion review. S/he had no prior history with the article or the subject area, but appears to have found the article through me. I reverted the deletion with explanation. 2tuntony re-reverted. Etc. I then pointed out WP:TPO to 2tuntony, who nevertheless deleted the sentence again. I have again reverted the deletion. You can see the edit history for yourselves.
I come seeking opinion on my Talk page usage. Have I used Talk:Threshold knowledge appropriately? Am I citing WP:TPO appropriately? Thanks for your time. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
An editor has pointed out to me that the guidelines differ subtly at two different points:
Now, I guess this is kind of unimportant, but it offends my sense of ... well, something. So... which is correct (i.e. which most accurately reflects current consensus)? And should one be changed?
For what it's worth, I favour "strongly preferred", but having had more than my fair share of run-ins with archiving bots, I sympathise with editors who hate and despise archiving...! TFOWR 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As I was writting my auto-archiving essay, I did run into the need for an archive notification template that suits better for sporadic discussions (discussion is only occasional). I made the Sporadic archiving notice template. I few demonstration implementation can be found on Talk:Gospel of Barnabas, Talk:Regina, Saskatchewan and Talk:Ho Yeow Sun. Comments, copy-editing, tweakings? -- Kslotte ( talk) 18:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the wiki for the talk page still needs to be more clear. I am still not sure if I am doing this right AlexandreaAdams ( talk) 17:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)AlexandreaAdams
How to use a talk page? I am not quite sure, but I had better learn! E. S. V. Leigh ( talk) 03:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It occasionally happens that users attempt to "ban" others (sometimes in so many words, other times saying equivalent things) from their user talk pages. I can't find any reference to this in policy, and the concept doesn't make sense to me. User talk pages are the primary means of editor-to-editor communication (eg for dispute resolution), and are often simply the most practical means of discussing something. Such "bans" can also lead to awkward situations where the "banned user" or their actions are discussed on that talk page, and they can't contribute to the conversation. Finally, there is no obvious means (especially if the "banning" user hasn't provided an email address) to determine whether an indefinite ban might be rescinded or whether the user's changed their mind, etc. So I would prefer to limit this in policy to (third-party) admin or community bans. Users can of course request that someone refrain from contacting them, and the more reasonable the request (eg limited in time and by specified issue, especially if there are obvious alternate venues for discussion), the more the recipient would be expected to respect them (i.e. the more likely breaching would lead to claims of harassment being taken seriously). Rd232 talk 10:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's face it, there are people who poke and prod and try to get under others' skin while staying just short of sanctionable harassment. Banning others from your talk page often comes across as childish; continuing to insert yourself where you know you're not welcome is dickish. Just make it clear that people are absolutely free to delete any unwanted comments from their talk page. The guideline already says "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." (I'd get rid of the "though archiving is preferred" that follows.) Perhaps add a sentence saying that if you feel someone is being provocative the best course is to silently remove their comments without engaging in return. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There are numerous reasons why users need to post comments on user talk pages, even if the users are in conflict. Notifications of deletions and ANI threads, for example. Also, issues that concern personal editing, like marking all edits as minor, belong on user talk pages not article talk pages. If user talk pages didn't serve a necessary purpose we could simply delete all of them. Talk page banning becomes a game in and of itself. I've even seen where Editor A bans Editor B from posting to his own talk page, but then posts to Editor B's talk page. It is entirely permissible to ignore or delete messages on your talk page, and existing rules about harassment and hounding cover those behaviors. Except in extreme cases (which are probably better handled some other way), talk page banning is inappropriate. Will Beback talk 07:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Fully support it. If one editor is being a dick and harassing another editor they have every right to tell them to stay off their page. There is absolutely NOTHING that other users needs to do on their page. If an AN/I notification needs to be delivered, they can leave a note with their message on AN/I saying "Can someone notify this user, I've been asked to stay off his talk page". If they are nominating one of their articles for speedy deletion, they can leave it in the edit summary, or not. There is no requirement that editors be notified of speedy deletion requests. I've repeatedly seen several editors continually poking (while not necessarily violating rules) other editors via their talk page. Getting involved in discussions that have nothing to do with them while making sniping, yet civil, comments.-- Crossmr ( talk) 06:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion for awhile and have been debating whether or not to add my own views. Ultimately I've come to the conclusion that what I could add here probably would be helpful in the larger view.
I've personally "banned" a very small number of editors from my own talk page, and later my entire userspace as a last resort after having been wikihounded by a small "group" of individuals. Ultimately, they still refused to stop the wikihounding behaviour, and unfortunately it took repeatedly bringing the issues to the attention of the community (via way of AN/I etc), and ultimately ArbCom numerous times over the course of about 15 months (the wikihounding originally began on May 26, 2009 and the last ArbCom motion was September 4, 2010) before the wikihounding mostly** stopped. Now, my case might be an extreme example, but it shows that while the practice of "banning" another editor from one's talk page/userspace is more or less accepted by the community, without the backing of the community, it still won't stop an individual from continuing to engage in harassment type behaviours if they are determined to continue.
**I use the term "mostly" because it later moved to off-wiki harassment, including contacting my place of work "[Tothwolf] is harassing me/others on Wikipedia while at work" (which I was later told is a typical "false victimisation" tactic used by people engaging in cyberstalking-type behaviours), as well as contacting, harassing, and even threatening other people I know via email, IM, etc, which ArbCom claimed they have no jurisdiction over off-wiki behaviour. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 11:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What I can tell you from first hand experience is that the community did not act right away to the wikihounding and harassment behaviours I was the target of. Some of that might have been my fault as I probably provided more information than necessary and I initially didn't show that others had previously been similarly targeted. Had the community stepped in immediately and said "this is not acceptable behaviour" things would have been resolved much faster.
Ultimately I think there is a much larger problem by in which a small number of editors have figured out several ways to game the system and barely remain "civil", all the while engaging in wikihounding and harassment type behaviours. If this were addressed then there likely would never be a reason to "ban" another editor from one's talk page in this way.
When I began to document what the individuals who targeted me had done to others, I found that most of their other "targets" eventually just "gave up" and left Wikipedia, with some of them becoming highly critical and jaded over the community failing to help them. I too felt the community failed me (and I said as much in at least one AN/I discussion and the initial ArbCom case), but I guess I was just too stubborn to "give up" and "disappear" from Wikipedia (although doing so probably would have prevented the off-wiki harassment). -- Tothwolf ( talk) 13:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I added real, legitimate information to wiki, only to have it deleted and then scolded by a bot? Which overlords determine what is acceptable information and which should be screened? That is just plain wrong, and against the spirit of the founders of wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.111.191 ( talk) 03:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors' bad attitudes and their bots push new contributers away, as does the complexity added by those same editors and bots. This is temporary you are not going to turn me into a permanent editor by berating me as if I know all the complex and long winded guidelines and rules. The Style Guide for Wikipedia is more of a Wikipedia Governance, 100 Book, Encyclopedia for Wikipedia.
First, start with making Governance and Style Guides only editable by Wikipedia Foundation staff.
Second, reduce the number of pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.218.73 ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 December 2010
Definition of "editorial privilege": the authority to use the policy covered by "Own Comments" ( WP:REDACT), rather than "Others' Comments" ( WP:TPOC).
Editor A can copy Editor B's errors in judgement into his own post, and then Editor A has editorial privilege over Editor B's content.
Where Editor A copies Editor B's errors in judgement, Editor B retains editorial privilege over Editor B's content.
I don't see anything in the policy that clarifies this case, although the examples in WP:REDACT for "Placeholder" suggest Rule B.
Thanks,
RB
66.217.118.38 (
talk) 01:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Neither A nor B, but actually (most of the time)
I thank the respondents for succinct and informative responses. RB 66.217.118.205 ( talk) 16:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Just thought I'd alert people to an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether there will be a global size limit for user talk pages, so that they load more easily. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} Hi I want to upload a picture of J A Rynd who was my Grand grand Uncle and I have a picture of him taken by my Grandfather Walter Harold Murray on a glass plate during the visit of King George V to Kingstown in 1911. He is in full court dress? Questionmarkie ( talk) 19:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Following this discussion at WP:ANI, I'm proposing to clarify the existing practice and policy in relation to user talk pages.
Core proposal
User talk pages are a key means of inter-editor communication, and to that end users should ensure that their user talk page does not unnecessarily inhibit accessibility. In designing their user talk pages, users should take into account that some editors have slower internet connections, older equipment, or may be editing using a device with a small screen. User talk pages should therefore be designed and managed (preferably through archiving) to ensure they remain at a manageable size and length, and not contain extensive content better suited to user pages or user sub pages, or other venues such as article talk pages or wikiproject pages. Administrators have a particular duty to ensure their talk pages are easily accessible to all editors.
Optional amendment 1
"Good practice is to keep the wikitext of the user talk page under 150k, avoid excessive image content, and keep the beginning of the discussion section visible on an average-sized screen without scrolling." - proposed to be added before the last sentence of the core proposal.
Rd232 talk 01:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, this guideline now says: "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 70 KB, or has more than 15 main sections." Allowing admin intervention at 150k seems appropriate, for user talk pages; I personally don't see a need to say more than that but YMMV. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Under WP:TPO the first bullet is "If you have their permission." which is then followed by a list of criteria. This is ambiguous, and could be taken two ways.
Which is the correct interpretation, and please could it be clarified. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 11:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
how do i make an article
so want i tell about my early life right then i add pic how though confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neshia Capblara ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to change the title of this page from " Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines" to " Wikipedia:Discussion guidelines". A recent discussion at WT:AFD showed that there was some confusion over whether
this guideline applies to discussion everywhere, or only in the "Talk" namespace. The third sentence of this page currently reads "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." We should make this more clear by changing the title. Jujutacular talk 19:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
If there is no objection, I will move the page tomorrow. Jujutacular talk 05:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Is the policy different than about 2 years ago? I thought you can delete stuff on your own talk page with VERY few exceptions? Has there been a discussion about this or does my memory serve me incorrectly? Thanks, Brain Before Life ( talk) 04:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Johnuniq, thanks for your feedback. I want you to take a look at this guideline page: WP:Canvassing and see how complete and nicely done that it is. It has a very friendly style, it's concise, it's easy to read and understand, etc... I think every article for a WP:guideline should strive to serve the reader, namely a Wikipedian who wants to know what community consensus is on a relevant policy. Think about it from a business perspective, and imagine that the page is a product/good/service and that the reader is a "customer" and we're aspiring for providing value to the customer by delivering a great quality product/good/service. The very fact that this page "failed me" as a reader is enough motivation to want me to improve it. My first idea I have for this article is more autonomy within each section. A reader should not have to read the whole page if they want a narrower understanding. This page covers a lot more stuff than the WP:Canvassing article, so I think each section should be a complete, whole unit of information. I believe that the top 20% of the article should be devoted to guidelines which are applicable to ALL talk pages of Wikipedia, and then there should exist more narrow subsets of organized information pertaining to subdivisions. That way if I wanted to know the policy on a user talk page (i.e. is it fine to delete others comments) then I can just read the top 20% of the article to understand the guidelines which apply to ALL talk pages, and then click on a subsection in the contents box to see a complete, autonomous section which is clear, informative, and has a nice friendly tone as the WP:Canvassing article has done an excellent job attaining. Do you agree with my comments of how this article needs to be improved? Do you agree with my recommendation or are there some drawbacks which a second set of eyes may find? I think this is definitely a perfect opportunity for me to share my skills and improve (for the reader's benefit and therefore the community's benefit) an important functionality inside Wikipedia. Thanks, Brain Before Life ( talk) 02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I undid my edit. I want to suggest 3 or 4 changes to this page later this month and try to make my vision for this page more appealing. Until then, I encourage others to read the page "as is" with a critical eye and red pen, figuratively. This page could use a lot of work. Brain Before Life ( talk) 09:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
The English content used on this page is dire. Please let somebody who is proficient in the English language proof-read the content displayed. 131.231.197.126 ( talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
In this Wikipedia page it states that the September 2010 quake was 10km deep but reporters on t.v. have been constantly saying it was 33km deep so which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.178.152 ( talk) 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Rather frequently I have seen the use of a reflist for an article talk page. Sometimes three or more on a talk page. One can not refer to cite numbers because any archive shifts them all about. Ought this page state that references given in a proposed piece of text be done as "nowiki" so that the full cite is apparent and does not make strange reference lists? Such a guideline would make following "suggested sources" a great deal easier in my opinion. Other opinions? Collect ( talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
Reflist-talk|close=1}}
. The template formats the reflist with a title and box. The |close=
closes the list so refs above it don't get parsed below it. -—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk 22:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)There is a photo of a sculpture (made of rock salt) depicting the late Polish (died 1935) Marshal and Prime Minister Josef Pilsudski [seen in the Wikipedia entry page for Pilsudski]. The photo credits state the photo may be reproduced as credit is given, in writing, to the photographer who took the photo of the sculpture. The photograph states it was taken, in two separate places, "by me." The photographers actual name is not stated; whoever submitted the photo, and the copyright info, must have done so assuming his or her name would be inserted by whoever reviews Wikipedia submissions (if anyone).
Thus there is a flaw in the Wikipedia design re: contributions of visual images [e.g. photographs] when contributors mistakenly state they have copyright to be attributed "from me" rather than their actual name. ~ Submitting a comment such as this is extremely challenging. It states "sign your posts by typing four tildes Akiva K Segan ( talk) 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)" but it does not state where and how to do that. I'll just do what it states to do: ~ ~ ~ ~ There is no information provided as to where this posting will be seen; it says this is a "talk page" but there is no info on how to access the talk page. Will see what happens.
Along the right side of the main article body, four photos of the shooting scene are vertically arranged along with a caption at the bottom; the caption seems to be part of the photo, meaning the text cannot be highlighted/copied as text-formatted content would be.
In the photo caption, the fallen police officer is identified as Washington, D.C., police officer "Thomas Delaharity"; I believe this is incorrect. The article body correctly identifies the officer as "Thomas Delahanty." To correct this, the photo will need to be edited and reposted.
TonyRony ( talk) 23:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
At an earlier discussion there was a consensus that there is to much archiving. I was then bold an changed the archiving thresholds to 70KB in size and 15 section (or threads). Old values was 50KB and 10 section. The main reason for this change is mainly that current computers and browser can handle larger pages without problems. There has been some edit warring between the new proposed values and the old ones. Do we get a consensus that values 70K and 15 sections is the one to use at section "When to condense pages"? -- Kslotte ( talk) 12:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
There's been some controversy over how to redirect the page Luther, and at some point, the redirect for the Talk Page went to a different article than the redirect. I changed the talk redirect to match the article redirect, but it seems to me that the talk pages for redirects should NOT be redirected themselves. What's the policy on this? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
#REDIRECT
directive will only actually cause a redirect if it's the first line on the page. One of its effects is to suppress normal display of the remainder of the page, although the page content is processed so that the page may be categorised. See
Vulcan Halt railway station for example; this works best if you have
Special:Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Show hidden categories turned on, to reveal the cats added by {{
R with possibilities}}
and {{
R printworthy}}
. Curiously, this general suppression of the display does not occur with a diff,
see here. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)deleting this content was a mistake :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolifofo ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like a clarification of the following
"Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."
The list that follows appears to contain several examples of situations where it is OK to make specific edits even if someone objects. For example:
Fixing an attempt to fake a signature: It seems that this should be fixed even if the signature-faker objects.
Removing prohibited material / Removing harmful posts: Should I leave it in if the person who posted the prohibited/harmful material objects to its removal?.
Archiving material not relevant to improving the article: Again, should a "don't touch my off-topic material!" objection be honored?
So is the list a list of specific situations where an edit is allowed (with care and subject to policy) even if someone objects? Or is the "stop if there is any objection" an absolute requirement to not fix a fake signature, etc. if anyone objects?
A related question: Should I read "...normally stop if there is any objection" as telling me to not change, say, the indentation level if the person who posted the comment objects, or should I read it as giving him permission to object to fixing the indent on comments he didn't write on the behalf of other editors who have not themselves voiced an objection? Guy Macon ( talk) 19:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I recently struck the comments of an indef-blocked sock puppet [10], [11]. This is a practice that I've seen used before, but upon reflection I came here looking for the appropriate guideline to make sure I wasn't over stepping. Reviewing WP:TPO, it seems that a weak argument could be made that this is acceptable based on Removing prohibited material, Removing harmful posts, or Refactoring for relevance. But that argument is indeed weak. Because of this, I would like to ask for clarification so that I can understand whether this not unheard of practice falls within wikipedia guidelines. Thank you, aprock ( talk) 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it completely acceptable to re-arrange talk page discussions if the only thing I am doing is correcting indents of specific users and adding outdents? Occasionally, these get off leaving the discussion hard to follow. Ryan Vesey ( talk) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Twice I tried to delete the following vandalism from the talk page of the Rubyfruit Jungle article: [14]. Both times I was reverted and told that this guideline prohibited such deletion. The comment is a distasteful joke about vaginas left by an anonymous IP address as the first post to the talk page. It doesn't relate to any content of the article and is potentially offensive to editors who actually want to use the talk page for discussion. It is a textbook case of vandalism per WP:Vandalism: "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page". I don't understand how this guideline prohibits me from deleting obvious vandalism like this. If it does, the wording needs to be changed. Kaldari ( talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
As per
I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, registered users are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.
Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.
In light of this, please change "registered and anonymous users" -> "registered and unregistered users". Thanks. 113.197.147.212 ( talk) 13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes WP:HUMAN and I live the sadness in front of my work. (read http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:70.29.168.231&redirect=no) Good luck -- 70.29.168.231 ( talk) 01:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Great idea! I didn't even realize we had a violation on our hands in such a simple term! 96.48.109.20 ( talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I find bold comments on my personal talk page very distracting. Is it OK to change the font after a comment has been read or is this disruptive editing? An experienced editor is edit warring because I changed the font from bold to normal for his comment on my talk page, but I consider this a trivial change. QuentinUK ( talk) 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how to comment correctly but I would like to put on record that this is the best general knowledge resource available on the internet and it should be properly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.129.117 ( talk) 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I added a section to the 2011 Reno Air Races crash discussion page, proposing that the The Galloping Ghost airplane article be merged into it. The discussion section title was, appropriately, "Merge The Galloping Ghost airplane into 2011 Reno Air Races crash".
After a number of people had commented, and voted for and against, someone changed the title to "Merge The Galloping Ghost airplane & Jimmy Leeward into 2011 Reno Air Races crash". No mention of this change was made in the body of the discussion, and in fact it took several days for me to notice. I found this objectionable, because my original proposal had been rewritten without notice, changing the meaning of my and other editors.
I've objected to the editor in question, but when I went looking for Wikipedia policy backing, I was surprised to find none.
I would like to suggest a policy on changing the title/meaning of a proposal. At the very least, the changer should clearly add a statement to the discussion that he has changed the title. I would suggest, however, that more restrictions would be warranted, and perhaps even the title/meaning of a proposal should not be changed without the permission of the original author. -- Dan Griscom ( talk) 23:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand what Talk is, so why is it important to combine the term like slang and say Discussion is a "Talk" page, when Talk is Talk and Discussion is Discussion. Any 'help please' would seriously be some good help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This comment from the Talk Page Guidelines article:
It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above.
leaves too much wiggle room. It nullifies the previous comments about not deleting others talk page comments in the minds of those who want to remove argument about the editing of the main articles. It's meant to keep everyone on the same page, that being the desired slant of the article. Just call it a rant and be done with it. I've seen time and time again where legitimate talk page comments are removed this way. 4.246.207.192 ( talk) 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I have slightly reworded the guideline text to forestall this misunderstanding. To construe the phrase "attack other users by naming them in the heading" as if it implied that any instance of "naming" automatically constituted an "attack" is, of course, absurdly against common sense, but the grammar of the wording as it stood indeed made this misunderstanding possible, on an extremely narrow legalistic reading. (The absurdity becomes obvious when you consider that this would force us to believe that a heading of "Thanks to XYZ for their wonderful edits" would automatically constitute an "attack" on XYZ!) – What the guideline was always meant to express, and has always been understood as expressing, was that you shouldn't include a user's name together with an attack on them. I've changed the wording to "making an attack against a named user in a heading". Neutral topic titles of the "Recent edits by XYZ" type have always been used widely, and have never caused any objections before Antidiskriminator started going round protesting against them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I note that the improvement made by Unscintillating, who has now reverted to his one-day-long "stable" version, consists of merely replacing "by" with "and" [22]. His sentence is still very ambiguous as I explained above. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 15:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I see I have fallen into a self-referential multi-layered issue, in which there are now two edit comments with my name in them is an edit comment with my name in it, where the heading might be construed to imply an attack. My desire to correct the record was not matched by attention to the wording in the header.
Unscintillating (
talk) 16:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the proposal should be brought here in clearer form (with before-and-after text and a quick statement of the difference, or with strike through and underline to show the difference). Currently, the text for "Never use headings to attack other users" seems to have been changed like this: using headings to attack other users and by naming them in the heading is especially egregious. That change is unhelpful because, as explained above, it is necessary and desirable at noticeboards like ANI to use clear yet neutral heading such as "Recent edits by User:Example". By contrast, also as noted above, it is rarely helpful to name an editor in a heading on an article talk page (there, the heading should be something like "Recent edits"). I suppose "and naming them" could be regarded as weak English, but it makes the point that a heading like "Recent nonsense added by User:Example" is an especially egregious attack. I'm not sure of the best way forward, but the solution needs to distinguish between general practice at an article talk page and at a noticeboard. Further, there probably are occasions when naming an editor in a neutral heading on an article talk page is not an attack.
Johnuniq (
talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Fut.Perf.'s rewording clarifying the major issue; reverted by Unscintillating over concerns of what "named users" could mean (see discussion above). Clarification added by me to a different bullet, reverted with a procedural reason by Unscintillating. Yet another clarification [23] by User:Gerardw with a wikilink added by me [24] was also reverted. Goodbye and good luck. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 11:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
[25] and [26]. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 09:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Proposed:
- Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand may be removed.
- Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts which both clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand and are disruptive may be removed with community consensus.
I used to try doing it between third parties, and results were mixed at best, and that was in a calmer time. I've since learned it is almost never (never say never, lest an impish deity make you eat your words) a good idea. Inevitably, the practice inflames passions and distracts editors, which is precisely the opposite of the goal of civility and personal attack policies. We don't need more invitations to people arguing about civility on Principal.
— User:Tznkai 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ignore, or report. And never, ever edit war to hat or remove personal attacks.
— User:KillerChihuahua 01:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
People REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY don't like having their comments redacted, and I haven't ever seen one case where someone "redacting" comments, in the name of civility, actually led to an increase of civility. What happens is whoever redacts is piled on, dismissed as an agent of the thought police by whoever's side you censored, heralded as a hero by the opposing side, and now you end up with a meta-debate on whether such actions are appropriate, you end up at ANI, then warning, blocks and desysops are issued. It never stops drama, and if the goal was to bring the heat down, then you've just shot yourself in the foot because you ensured that the heat would rise up to white-hot levels. Yes people should try to be civil and focus on the actual problem, rather than saying "that's just retarded" or similar. However sometimes, there are behaviours and viewpoints that are "just retarded", and it's perfectly appropriate to call a spade a spade. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. But WP:CIVIL isn't one either.
— User:Headbomb 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I recall that there used to be an admonition not to insert replies into the middle of a comment by another editor.
In this example, user:B's signature is repeated throughout the commentary, but user:A's appears only at the end. The rationale for prohibiting was that it becomes muddled. However I don't see anything about it in this guidelines anymore, nor can I find any discussion in the archives. Was it moved or deleted, or am I misremembering? Will Beback talk 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Should this guideline mention available remedies such as WP:CRD for material that makes it into edit history summaries via the headings? Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 12:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
how to get the prove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsenpey ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Should the existing
- Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.
be changed to the proposed
- Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand may be removed.
Gerardw ( talk) 12:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
We need to modify this guideline in such a way that an editor can start a poll with a defined polling process (such as to gauge the support for different versions of the lead paragraph) and then have authority to maintain those rules in a given section of the talk page. For example, such polls for support are more managable and resolve more quickly when oppose votes are disallowed. However, there is always some (l)user who refuses to abide by the rules clearly stated in advance. It should be permissible to remove those !votes from the poll, and there should be a canned warning which could be put on the violator's talk page warning that ignoring the pre-stated polling process is disruptive and as such may be reverted. The editor who started the poll should not be tasked with preserving the disruptive added content. The editor who violated the polling process should be responsible for expressing their opposition in another way, such as adding their own proposal and supporting that, not the creator of the poll. This M.O. is frequently used by editors to disrupt polls that they think will go against them, even though polls are only used for data gathering and the result would require another level of discussion before implementation. Yworo ( talk) 01:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
As an example of where "oppose" votes are counter-prodcutive, imagine a poll to determine editor support (not opposition) for specific wordings of the lead sentence. It could be constructed with the following rules.
Multiple choices are offered for the lead sentence. Each editor may support one or more choices. If an editor supports none of the choices, they add a proposal rather then making an "oppose" vote. The value of such a method is that on a contentious article, a talk subpage could be created for the poll. The poll could run continuously, with the lead sentence being changed whenever the proposal with the most weight changes (assuming all variants are permitted by Wikipedia rules). However, such a poll is easily disrupted by editors making oppose votes rather than a new proposal. The poll would look like this. The ordered lists automatically count supporters, but only if the other editors, out of respect, observe the stated methods and goals of the poll. This doesn't actually ever happen, so the originator either needs some way to enforce the polling structure and/or ignoring the polling structure needs to be defined as disruptive and something that can be reverted by the originator or anyone else who notices the violation of the polling definition. There is always another place or way to express or discuss the nature of one's opposition. Those who disrupt polls choose to disrupt polls rather than comment elsewhere as provided for.
First section states type of poll being conducted, rules for voting. In this case:
All reasons against any proposal should be discussed here, not within the polling structure. Show support for existing proposals or add a new proposal. Do not add "oppose" votes to the poll.
Look at Talk:C. S. Lewis. The editors who ruined the poll as I set it up made no proposal of their own. If they had, it would have quickly gained more support than the other proposals. The editors responding in a disruptive manner actually impeded the progress to their own goal by doing so. This ain't right. If the polling method were to be sincerely tried, I am sure it would be found superior in the situations for which it is optimal. But the current "rules" as interpreted by those who wish to disrupt prevent this method from even being tried once. Yworo ( talk) 04:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
For those wanting to run various types of poll without disruption, I suggest running the poll in your user space, which you are allowed to control, then moving the poll to article talk space as a sub-page when the poll is complete, or at least far enough along that the process has been accepted and is expected to continue to be followed. Yworo ( talk) 23:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
In reaction to the number of recent posts here about articles, I've WP:BRD reformatted the top of the page to reduce the "wall of text" look in the hope the "Don't post general questions" text stands out more. Gerardw ( talk) 10:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently the guidelines read
"Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving."
and
"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred."
I would suggest changing the first statement to read "many experienced editors" rather that "most editors" simply because the "most editors" claim is factually untrue. A quick look at a couple of dozen user talk pages clearly shows that most editors do neither. I haven't done an exhaustive survey of random user talk ages, but I doubt that among the minority that move/remove comments archivers outnumber deleters.Withdrawn. See below.
The second statement claims that archiving is preferred. Has this semi-policy been determined by consensus? I would argue that the policy is that neither is preferred; it is a choice that is up to the user. That being said, a variation on the first statement would seem to be appropriate here. It is helpful to know that, although it is your choice, a lot of experienced editors have chosen archiving over deleting. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
For the third and last time I ask, where is the evidence that "archiving is preferred" other than the personal opinion of whoever inserted the text into this page? Was it discussed? Was a consensus reached? Is it a logical extension of some other existing policy that trumps the policy that the user can freely delete anything he wishes from his user page? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I am criticizing the wording. If I was challenging the process I would have said so. I don't give my tacit consensus for it to be there. I have been trying to have a discussion, to little effect. Clearly asking again and again if anybody knows any reason why archiving is preferred is not working, so please, tell me the magic words that will somehow convey the fact that I am challenging the statement "archiving is preferred" and will convey that rather simple concept in such a way that somebody, anybody, will discuss whether archiving is preferred and why they think so. Did I mention that I am trying to discuss whether archiving is preferred? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Gerardw has a problem with me listing banned users. Thoughts? CTJF83 21:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
( ←) I'd suggest changing
to
This would seem to achieve both Ctfj83's goal and adding a mention and mine preference for keeping policy pages as compact as possible. Gerardw ( talk) 02:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)