Wikipedia talk:Refactoring talk pages

Best Practices for deleting irrelevant conversations and "archiving" completed or "closed" topics

As a very casual editor, I often get lost in formalities, but always do my best to research an action that I'm about to take for the first time. I've read this article from head to tail and still can't determine when it's acceptable to remove off topic discussions, and how to "archive" topics that are no longer relevant - essentially when they're almost 10 years old and bear no resemblance to the article in its current state, what can I do to help things? Sudopeople (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read Help:Archiving_a_talk_page which answers my second question. The first I think, is still unanswered on this project page. "Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material" is mentioned at the top of the page, but the article doesn't discuss exactly when, why and how. Sudopeople (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think much of what you're talking about is covered in WP:VANDALISM and not refactoring. This guideline is mostly about clarity than it is about keeping malicious material off the website. Mkdw^talk 18:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Vandalism is deliberate (italicised at WP:VANDALISM). A shining example of what I'm talking about is the Talk:KTM#KTM_ownership page, specifically "KTM Ownership". The guy has written a rant about how awesome KTM is compared to other brands. I deleted it but it was reverted. What should I have done instead? Archive it even though it specifically falls under this project page's subject: "Removal of off-topic[...]" content? This page hints about what deserves removal, but not how or why. Sudopeople (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not possible to specify exactly what should occur in situations like this. In general, edit warring is the primary concern and that means you should never repeat something more than once or possibly twice. In principle there are exceptions but they need experience. For Talk:KTM the situation is that an off-topic comment about the quality of the product from 2008 was removed and then restored—it's simply not worth worrying about that, forget it. It would be worth taking firmer action if someone were adding that comment now, but there is no evidence that the stuff on that talk page is attracting more fluff. Bear in mind that removal may be the "better" outcome if all other considerations were disregarded, but keeping is still the right thing to do if the matter is inconsequential and involves conflict—don't sweat on trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already forgotten the article I used as an example. There is zero edit warring going on there. I was being bold and my edit was reverted. As far as I'm concerned I'll never touch that article again because of it. My question is not about how to win the perceived "battle" on Talk:KTM, it's about when I'm allowed to make talk pages better, and more productive. THIS project page tells me I can remove off-topic discussions. I simply want to know when, why, and how I can do so. You'd probably think most of my edits are trivial, but I don't think it's your place to discourage any edits I choose to contribute. From my point of view, if a user fixes a single character in the Greek Alphabet article, they've may have made Wikipedia one iota better (pun intended).

"It is not possible to specify exactly what should occur in situations like this." This notion is absurd. If it is true, you should add a template to this page saying, "Don't even bother reading this article. It's impossible to know what to do. Forget it."

This article needs clarification on when, why, and how to edit talk pages when discussions are off-topic or otherwise don't belong. If I don't have the "experience" you mention to make the right choice, then this article should say so. If this project page is more about "clarity" as @Mkdw: says, I'd like to see a link here to another page discussing the issue I see regularly: "crap in talk pages". Sudopeople (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that Talk page guidelines also specifically mentions the subject briefly: "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal." Sudopeople (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Setting up an archive bot to archive old talk-page sections is the best solution to an accumulation of old discussions. It happens automatically, and so does not lead to accusations. I only realised this after an admins explained it to me, after there had been a huge mess over the refactoring of a talk page in 2012. I realised afterwards that about half the problems could have been avoided that way.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Is fixing dead links a appropriate form of refactoring?

Hello! In this change, I had added text to this page which listed fixing dead links in other peoples comments (see example). However, the change was based only on what was implied in a table on a mostly unrelated page. That is why I ask whether it is appropriate to change other people's talkpage comments so to fix dead links. Please vote yes or no below. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes

I think it is perfectly appropriate. I would, however, make it an addition rather than a replacement link so that there is no chance of inadvertently changing some intent. MartinezMD (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it is fine. If it is obvious that no intent change occurs, just replace it; otherwise, follow MarinexMD's suggestion. --72.173.170.41 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi. If another editor keeps on refactoring over my objection, moving my comment on a talk page not his own to a prior discussion I opened on an unrelated article (higher on the page, so less likely to be seen), and refuses to stop--saying it is ok for him to do that, how can I best address this? Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:6960:9DFE:CAD2:CC8E (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• For background, the conversation in question is this one: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Help?. There is also on on-going discussion on my talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 19:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• @2603:7000:2143:8500:6960:9DFE:CAD2:CC8E: for a start, respect WP:MULTI and keep discussion in one place - for example, you made the same comment at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Redrose64. Great point. People should instead of editing here, if they wish to comment, comment at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Question. To avoid having the same discussion on multiple pages, which fragments discussion. --2603:7000:2143:8500:6960:9DFE:CAD2:CC8E (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Is bolding or labeling !votes on an RfC acceptable reformatting?

Recently saw and RfC where most people bolded !votes as usual, but a handful left them unbolded. I tried reformatting by bolding uses of "support/oppose" in the discussion and adding comment to the start of anything that wasn't a clear vote either way, both for consistency and to make things easier on whoever closes the RfC. However, another editor seems to disagree that this is permissible reformatting. Is there a general consensus on this one way or another? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves: Although many RfCs are written in such a way that they beg !votes, whether support/oppose or option 1/option 2/option 3 etc., RfCs are supposed to be requests for comment, voting is not compulsory and insisting on it can be counterproductive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, so I'm not suggesting changing an RfC where nobody voted by reformatting everything into a vote. Probably I should just link the diff. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, a discussion in which I am involved. In that thread, at 22:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC), I stated There are people above who are !voting "oppose" or "support", but it's not clear to me exactly what is being opposed or supported. Maybe it wasn't clear to others either, which is why they didn't bold their responses. I see that Tryptofish (talk · contribs) made this comment, which seems highly relevant to the discussion here. I am minded to revert all of your bolding. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)