Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk page guidelines page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. |
Name posted as the singular comment
More than once, an IP (anon) editor has posted my name in a discussion without giving a reason for doing so. The latest: @ Talk:You (TV series).
Am I being solicited to participate in the discussion? Am I only supposed to know there is a discussion? Whatever ... posting an editor's name, and only the name, as a "comment" or "reply" should be deletable without a WP:TPO justification. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 02:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is disruptive editing, maybe vandalism. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- You could try posting a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on their user talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Enforcement of topic bans on talk pages
According to this policy, any person who is subject to a "topic ban" is forbidden to discuss that topic on any talk page.
The talk page guidelines don't mention this policy at all; should it be mentioned in this section? Jarble (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's sufficient for this page to cover general guidance for the vast majority of editors who don't have any editing restrictions. The guidance pages for editing restrictions can discuss their scope. isaacl (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Tagging with small text
Involved in a situation recently where there was someone effectively giving the appearance of !voting more than once, to which another editor struck through the bolded part of the !vote. I can see the reasoning behind it, but WP:DISCUSSAFD explicitly recommends self-strikethroughs so someone else striking it can cause confusion. (The only exception to "Striking out text with <s>...</s> or {{strike}} or marking text as deleted with ... constitutes a change in meaning. It should be done only by the user who wrote it, or as otherwise provided in this talk page guideline." here seems to be the common WP:SOCKSTRIKE.) A method I have seen to address such !votes, as well as similar situations such as SPAs, is to write a small-text tag inline after the signature. Would it be worth formalising some guidance on that practice here? CMD (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Proposed enhancement to WP:MULTI
At WP:MULTI, I would like to enhance the sentence
- Instead, start the discussion in one location and, if appropriate, advertise it elsewhere via a link.
so that it reads
- Instead, start the discussion in one location and, if appropriate, advertise it elsewhere via a link; templates such as
{{fyi}}and{{subst:please see}}are available for this.
This is in response to this post. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:CURRENTSECTION" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Wikipedia:CURRENTSECTION has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 29 § Wikipedia:CURRENTSECTION until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)