Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Help needed on the application of the rule about user names in a headings

Unresolved

I need help with interpretation of this guideline. More precisely New topics and headings on talk pages. According to this part of guideline we should keep headings neutral and:

• Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user.
• Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines. Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators.

The guideline explains that someone can "attack other users by naming them in the heading" because it "is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period"

There is a discussion here about this guideline and its interpretation.

I have a simple question: Is it allowed to name other users in the headings if you want to discuss their edits?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the recent change of the guideline my question is still valid since both previous and changed version of the guideline say: "Never address other users in a heading"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please look up what the verb "address" means in English. It means "talk to someone", not "talk about someone". For example, "XYZ, why did you revert me?" would be a heading "addressing" XYZ. "Edits by XYZ" is not a heading "addressing" XYZ. The explanation of that passage in the guideline is very clear about what its scope and intention is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. It is obvious that there is dispute between me and you Fut.Perf. about the interpretation of this guideline. I did look up what the verb "address" means in English. According to merriam-webster.com it can mean: direct, aim, to direct the efforts or attention of (oneself), to deal with ....

I would still like to learn how this guideline is interpreted by other (noninvolved) users and to get an answer on simple question: Is it allowed to name other users in the headings if you want to discuss their edits?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the context. ANI etc., yes. Article talk, probably a bad idea. Gerardw (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for yor comment. I agree with your opinion. Comments of more users who have opinion about "naming other users in the headings on the article talk pages" would be highly appreciated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I also thought Gerardw's principle was sound, and I attempted [1] to add it to the guideline—not as an absolute prohibition or equating the mere mention of a user's name in a heading with a persona attack, but as a best practice recommendation. Alas my clarification was reverted in the general bruhaha. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to be bold and try re-inserting it. If someone reverts, then it is obviously controversial and we can discuss it here. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Support It should never be necessary to specify name an editor in this context. Gerardw (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I think this is an unnecessarily restrictive wording, as it's certainly the case where a user name might be mentioned, for example when discussing a page in user space. I'll modify the guideline to be less black and white. aprock (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on whether to include a passage added previously with no discussion/consensus

The following was added by Youreallycan/Off2riorob with no discussion: "External links to locations that are not considered WP:RS's should not be posted on article talkpages and can be removed by other users. Do not express personal opinions about living subjects on article talkpages, such personal posts can be deleted and users posting such personal opinions can have their editing privileges removed." I think it is not entirely coherent for one thing, it seems to me that the talkpage is exactly where one would want to discuss whether a particular link meets WP:RS and whether the information in question is appropriate and relevant to the article. Anyway the question is whether this passage should be added. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If a link is deemed unsuitable on policy grounds (such as a WP:BLP violation), then it remains a WP:BLP policy violation no matter where it is posted under current rules. Removing this section would not make such improper links then allowable under these guidelines, so I am unsure exactly what the cavil is here. If you wish to make BLP violating sites allowable, then the place to seek a change would have to be at WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course -- but that's not what the addition said. The question is whether it's going to be unacceptable to link to sites that are "not considered WP:RSs". These are not the same propositions. I would have thought it's obvious. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources that are not wikipedia reliable have no benefit on the talkpage as they can never be added to the article - this addition is not something that is needed to be invoked often but its addition allows for the removal of attack sites and blogs that are not reliable and get spammed to talkpages because users are unable to add them to the article. My intention in this addition was only to assist the removal of the worst violating externals, lesser violations will usually be ignored. User that were in dispute should be directed to the WP:RSN for verification that their source was of benefit to the article. BLP also already excludes users commenting their personal opinions about living persons and that addition also is designed to clearly allow the removal of the worst violations. Youreallycan 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Then BLP guidelines are sufficient for what you have in mind. For sites that are not BLP violations, at least, the talk-page is exactly where one might want to discuss them. Again, I have no interest in trying to enable violation of BLP via links on talk-pages (though obviously I might disagree about whether particular cases etc.), but preventing linkage to other sites even if they are not WP:RS goes too far in relation to productive use of talkpages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no benefit to the article from talkpage discussion of sources that are not wikipedia reliable. Users that dispute such non reliable claims can be directed to the correct location - WP:RSN Youreallycan 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't know that that's true for all cases without being able to discuss the contents of particular sites in particular cases. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If sources are removed for BLP violating issues and worries then the users that dispute that can go to, or be directed to the correct noticeboard. Users can and should have the guideline support to good faith remove such externals for such situations. - Youreallycan 22:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes -- which is why WP:BLP is sufficient for your purposes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really when users such as yourself are reverting the disputed links back in to articles and citing WP:TPO - which is being used to assert, that any drive by IP account can add whatever they want and other users can't remove it whatever their concerns - this addition is just to clearly state that such good faith removals are not to be reverted back in automatically. Youreallycan 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It goes too far. If you believe TPO needs to say that BLP violations on talk pages can be removed, then propose a discussion of that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

How would users ever discuss a possible useful link if nobody could post one to a talk page? Example at Talk:Email_address#Email_syntax_validator. fredgandt 22:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If it was removed in good faith as a TPG violating not wikipedia reliable , blp violating external then rather than edit warring it back into the article citing WP:TPO - you should rather take your desired link addition to a noticeboard for discussion. Youreallycan 22:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity - Not too far when users such as yourself give no good faith consideration to removals, and are edit war reverting the disputed links back in to articles - There is no benefit to linking to violating externals that are not WP:RS - Youreallycan 22:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What is there to object to this? Do not express personal opinions about living subjects on article talkpages, such personal posts can be deleted and users posting such personal opinions can have their editing privileges removed." Youreallycan 22:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) While I can understand that the intent of the text added to the guidelines is to explicitly remind editors that WP:BLP applies and may be enforced on talk pages as well as elsewhere on Wikipedia, the phrasing (added by Youreallycan/Off2riorob) seems to be a bit too broad. There are many circumstances where a source not meeting WP:RS standards may still be appropriate and relevant for use on a talk page, even of a BLP.

Consider, for example, an article about the hypothetical and relatively obscure writer John Q. Author. Being a somewhat older and mostly-retired chap, Author doesn't maintain a web site of his own. A literature enthusiast has created a fan site dedicated to Author, providing comprehensive lists of Author's works and public appearances. While such a webpage wouldn't be a 'reliable source' within the definitions of WP:RS or WP:BLP and almost certainly would never be included in the article itself, it could be an excellent starting point for the editors seeking to find better sources for Author's biography. Unfortunately, such a useful link would be fair game for removal given the way that guideline has been rewritten.

While I'm sure it's not Youreallycan's intention to abuse the guideline in such a way, if we leave overly-broad language in place then it will eventually be misused by editors who don't know better. As such, at least the first sentence shouldn't stand; the rest of it appears to be redundant with the content of WP:BLP (and with the specific, clear invocation of that policy in the subsequent sentence) and so probably isn't necessary on this page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This addition has been stable for over four months and has not been abused in any way - and your extereme example would not invoke this guideline - there would be no desire or reason to. WP:TPO - is being used to keep anything posted on a talkpage from being removed, it seems reasonable to add a small disclaimer to reject that position. Youreallycan 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that this (part of the) guideline has never been used; what has been invoked (before and since your addition to this guideline) has simply been WP:BLP, whose provisions and applicability are clear, explicit, and generally agreed upon by the community. Your modification – presumably inadvertently – appreciably widens the category of links that are fair game for removal without discussion, not merely in relation to biographies of living persons, but for all articles and topics. The change has gone unremarked largely because the community hasn't noticed it, or been aware of its implications.

If you'd like to amplify the reference to WP:BLP in this guideline, that's not necessarily problematic—but you need to do so in such a way that you're not drastically changing policy and practice. I get that right now you're focused on how this might apply to the Santorum silliness, but I can see right now how allowing the blanket removal of any link to a non-WP:RS-approved reliable source would – shall we say &dnash; drastically alter the way that discussions about fringe science, religion, history, alternative medicine, and other topics happen. I only looked at this discussion a few minutes ago, and I've already seen a couple of serious unintended consequences. I'm not saying that some of those changes might not be for the better, but you can't push through a major policy change like that without discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not a policy its a guideline and there has been no serious consequences for the last four months. I am not "pushing something through without discussion" as you allege - I boldly added it over four months ago and there has been no objection until now apart from User:Nomoskedasticity - who is a user that just opposes anything I do and just reports and wants to get me blocked at any opportunity - you yourself are also a user that opposes me at any available position. Youreallycan 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(multiple ec) I would hope that you could set whatever personal feelings you might have about me aside, and address the substance of what I'm saying. Your change can have unintended consequences, and has been removed. You're welcome to suggest a revised version of the guideline that doesn't have those problems. In the meantime, the policy basis for the action that you want to take – the removal of links to BLP-violating content – seems to be firmly intact; I'm not suggesting that what you're doing there can't or shouldn't be done. (Truth be told, I'm not following the Santorum stuff at all, and have no interest in getting involved.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I made this bold addition to the guideline over four months ago - that addition has nothing do with santorum. Externals that are not WP:RS are of no benefit to articles and as such of no benefit to discussion either - POV pushers and violators add them to the talkpage because they can't get them into the article - my addition is not to focus on your global warming blogs but on stronger violations. What about just a comment somewhere that WP:TPO is not an excuse to revert good faith removals - WP:TPO is clearly being abused. Youreallycan 23:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

'Externals that are not WP:RS are of no benefit to articles and as such of no benefit to discussion either' - please see WP:EL. for full context. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know who you imagine that I am or what you think that my problem is, but I don't get what you're trying to insinuate about "[my] global warming blogs". (In my experience, I generally find myself on the side opposed to the anti-science fringe blog nutters.) Perhaps it would be best if you could focus on the problems that I identified, instead of trying to attack me personally?

I offered a specific example of the type of situation where a source that doesn't meet WP:RS could still be useful (on the article talk page) to editors constructing an article. I think I made clear that I wasn't talking about links appearing in the External links section of an article (which can and should be held to the higher standard in WP:EL, but which is again different from WP:RS) and I don't think it's helpful to muddy the discussion here by bringing them in. All I'm asking is that you craft your additions to this guideline more carefully, so that they align with the established policy in BLP; your original change seriously overstepped that line. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's incorrect that a link which might not count as an RS should never be placed on a talk page. There are a number of reasons for doing so, including discussing whether the website is RS. A non-RS link may have useful background information or context, etc. If it doesn't violate BLP or NPA, then non-RS links shouldn't be a problem on talk pages.   Will Beback  talk  04:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Nobody Ent 11:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also note that a single mention is understandable. Multiple inclusions are less so. Collect (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit etc.

In addition to changing "since" to "as" (which I trust is pretty much noncontroversial) I strengthened the bar about using editors' names in section titles, especially where the section title could be viewed as critical of the editor. I trust this will not be found too controversial. Collect (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Noting that the "avoid" wording has been reinstated , I would like to ask whether the practice of making references to specific editors in section titles should, in fact, be barred. I, so far, can not think of any case where such occurs on article talk pages where it is a reasonable practice (this does not apply to ArbCom talk pages in any case, I should think). Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Two common acceptable situations that occur: (a) referring to pages that are in user space, (e.g. [2]) and (b) discussing the edits of a specific user using a neutral title. (e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], etc...)

As has been noted above, the practice of including using editor names is widespread on in the WP name space, and generally isn't problematic in heading titles. For general consistency, it seems difficult to have a policy where one rule applies to one set of talk pages, but not another. Headers which insult editors are another matter. I certainly think one should avoid calling out editors, but that's very different from correctly describing a topic with a header which includes the editor's name. aprock (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Then: Do not use any editor's name in any section title which is critical of that editor ? Just trying to make it past "suggestion which has no import" level. Collect (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you're suggesting that wording be used instead of In general, avoid using editor names in article talk page headings., I think that sounds like a good solution. aprock (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, do not use editor names in article talk page headings. OK? Collect (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

How about "Do not use editor names in article talk page headings." I don't really see a problem having policies which vary depending on the context -- i.e. different rules for article talk vs. user talk vs. noticeboard. Nobody Ent 00:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem with both of these solutions is that convention and clarity dictate that having editor names in headers is appropriate. Contravening convention when there is no issue of negativity seems unlikely to be a workable guideline. aprock (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any examples? The examples above seem to be all user, not article, talk. Nobody Ent 02:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do these guidelines only apply to article talk pages? If so, I think that needs to be clarified in the lead, and possibly also the article title. As it currently reads, these guidelines appear to be general, applying to all talk pages. aprock (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a section lower down, #3: User talk pages. This would seem to imply that the sections above are not about user talk pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

centralized talk pages

New section needs to be clarified -- where should the discussion to have a centralized discussion take place? Nobody Ent 23:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. How now? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent 01:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Should we swear?

Is it possible to use profanity on the WP Talk page?Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hell yes. Just don't direct it at a specific person. Meowy 16:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Interrupting comments

Recently my comments on a talk page were interrupted without the use of an interrupt template. Understanding that these were probably in good faith, I've let the user know that I disapprove of my comments being interrupted like that (frankly, it wasn't that long). However, user seems to disagree.

Do users have a right to interrupt someone else's comments even that someone else disagrees?VR _talk 00:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that in general, with rare exceptions, interruptions to comments are usually from tendentious and unhelpful editors who do not understand that others may wish to read the discussion later. However, a quick look (I did not look at the details) makes me think that the above issue concerns a user who has inserted a reasonable comment on their talk page, and that's a very different matter. Precise etiquette is not required on one's own talk page, and unless the user is misrepresenting something (that is, making it look as if some other user said something other than what they said), the matter should be dropped. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the interrupting comment. It happened at Talk:2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings, not at their talk page. Since the user believes its ok to interrupt comments, they did it again.

And maybe what you said should be added to WP:TPO.VR _talk 03:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I missed where the disagreement took place and focused on the follow-up at the user talk page. I think I looked at the article talk page in your first diff but did not see any significant back-and-forth on the issue of talk page procedures (I don't think you reverted the post which inserted interruptions into your comment?). I think I once (on a severely abused talk page where the offender ended up with a year-long Arbcom ban) removed all the interruptions an editor had inserted, and dumped them all at the end of the talk page section with a note requesting that comments should be added at the end for ease of collaboration with other editors. But a quick look at the article talk page under consideration (without looking at the issue) just shows standard disagreements—I do not see any repeated abuse of talk page procedures (if they persisted on inserting interruptions after you removed them, I would regard the issue as warranting follow up). I don't think there would be much support for changing TPO as there will never be a sufficient set of rules to prevent people doing unhelpful things. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfc potentially affecting this guideline

Please note that there is an ongoing Rfc which could affect the contents of this guideline. The Rfc is located at: Template talk:Non-administrator observation#What to do with this template.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Discuss Tab Needed

If the talk page is not suppose to be a forum for controversial views about an article, then every article needs a third tab beyond talk named "Discuss". Until such a thing exists, there is no place to voice arguments as to why or why not something should be included in an article *but* on the talk page, and for that reason, I would argue that these rules be expanded to be more liberal and open to all voices without stringent censure. The talk page is 'behind' the main article page, out of view... its not like talk page edits appear or interfere with the main article. 71.226.11.248 (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussion of actionable proposals regarding the article. For example, if someone posts at Talk:Barack Obama saying that Obamacare is hopeless, their commentary is just soapboxing and should be removed. If the article were not a target for repeated point scoring, it might be acceptable to discuss whether the article should include a quote from some source saying that Obamacare is hopeless (but on an article like that, such tactics are always from people wanting to find a way to troll or soapbox, so such comments are routinely removed or closed, depending on the transparency of the attempt). Newcomers might want to discuss whether the article should quote someone's claim that Obama was born in Africa—again, that is usually trolling, but if apparently genuine, the discussion would be closed after pointing to WP:RS and WP:FRINGE which prevent attempts to introduce wacky claims into mainstream articles. If the talk page guidelines were not enforced, talk pages would quickly degenerate into walls of abusive nonsense, as is seen on all unmoderated forums. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

IP seems to fail to understand that Wikipedia is not a not a forum or not a social networking site. There doesn't need to be a place to discuss the topic itself (which, looking at the IPs history, is what they are doing on various talk pages). There are thousands of other websites on the internet that do that, and do it better then us. Our mission is solely to build a freely accessible encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page post that I don't understand

There was a new post to Talk:Norton AntiVirus, the section avscntsk DLL file 001 Norton source code. I've collapsed it since it was so long (and nowikied, since it messed with the collapse template), but should this section be deleted? I don't really understand what it is. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just delete stuff like that (someone has done it already). I use an edit summary like "remove comment per WP:TALK", but stuff which has no apparent connection with improving the article should be removed, particularly when it appears to be potentially disruptive like that absurd post (a big binary file!). Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Animated GIFs

Occasionally you see animated GIFs used on talk pages. Good-faith example: User talk:Planetary Chaos Redux#My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season. Like many who have Asperger's syndrome, I have trouble reading a page when there is something flashing or moving on it. Those who have epilepsy can be severely impacted (see Photosensitive epilepsy#Web design) and many people find such images to be annoying. Should we have something in the guideline discouraging the practice? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I find animations annoying. You do know that many browsers will shut up if you press Escape? If you can't get any progress with this guideline and would like to ask about other options, try WP:VPT (i.e., things you would have to do to stop animations). As far as the guideline goes, I don't think you will get much joy as people don't like being restrictive on user pages. Also, what would be the effect of a guideline? The animations would still appear, and you would need a half-hour discussion (possibly followed by six hours at WP:ANI) to actually remove one. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would look into whether a web browser can block it. I believe Firefox has an option to stop animations after a single loop (for an animation at the bottom of the page like that, it would stop animating before you even saw it). Plus, there are some animated gifs on Wikipedia that are absolutely vital to explaining concepts in articles. I would say that this is beyond the scope of Wikipedia and that you should find a web browser that would block it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revision of "Keep headings on topics related to article" wording

I believe that the above wording at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages could be improved on and amplified by the following, as at [7]:

FROM:

• Keep headings on topics related to the article. It should be clear from the heading which aspect of the article you wish to discuss. Do not write "This article is wrong" but address the specific issue you want to discuss.

TO:

• Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed. It should be clear from the heading which aspect of the article (template, etc.) you wish to discuss. Do not write "This article is wrong" but address the specific issue you want to discuss. A related (potential) article Edit should be traceable to that Talk-page heading.

(Added italics in the TO Edit indicate changes or additions.)

The proposed change of the first sentence is intended to make it clearer and more specific and self-contained, to make it easier to observe that guideline, to empower other editors frustrated by obscure or off-point headings.

The last sentence of the TO Edit would enable readers to see more easily the connection between a Talk page discussion and a (possible) article Edit that results from it. I can cite instances where it may look like an effort to obscure the connection of the 2, which may make for lively but unproductive discussion or WP:reverts, or to discourage discussion for the lack of transparency. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments are requested

Matters related to this article are discussed in the essay WP:Avoiding talk-page disruption and an RfC has been posted requesting comments here. Please provide your advice. Brews ohare (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Swearing is endemic to our species but displays a distinct lack of vocabulary and sensitivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddielaval (talk • contribs) 14:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing and adding links

Hi all,

Anyone help me through the practices and policies here?

I assisting someone, Jari-Matti Latvala to be precise with their web presence. I run the Facebook fan club, manage the official web site, look after the Twitter account and so forth.

On his Wiki entry I noted that the URL is simply wrong, pointing to a dot FI URL that has never been used, when it should be the ubiquitous dot com, so I have tried to change that. I get a message about deadlines and how I shouldn't change a URL - what, even when it's plain wrong?

Second, I added a link to the Twitter feed and to the fan club in the sincere view that these are simply useful additions to his Wiki entry. They've been removed and "conflict of interest" has been cited.

Yes I am relatively new to WIki edits so any real world experience and guidance would be appreciated

Thanks

Andrew Barriskell (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew. The best place to ask such questions is the help desk. You can also place the text {{helpme}} (just like that—"helpme" inside double curly brackets)—on your own user talk page, and someone will respond. In the meantime, very briefly, conflict of interest is frequently a concern around here, and most external links to social media sites aren't acceptable. I've gone ahead and fixed the url for you, however. Rivertorch (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Archiving talk pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request community input re archiving talk pages. Two issues: (1) guideline as to when a talk page should be archived; and (2) whether editors involved in a debate should be able to increase archiving speed without consensus. The debates started separately at Talk:Circumcision#Tactical_Archiving and Talk:Pogrom#Archiving. About half of the involved editors in the discussion are from a similar editing background (Israel/Palestine). We desperately need feedback from the wider community here.

On point (1), the guideline before 2010 was 32KB in edit boxes / 50 topics. Following amendments [8] [9] by User:SteveMcCluskey and User:Jayjg and this discussion it was changed to 50KB in a page / 10 main topics. It was disputed in this discussion and here [10]. The odd thing is that Steve's change in 2010 was supposed to be "rewriting it to recommend a larger file size". So it seems that the whole issue stems from an accidental change of the word edit boxes to in a page. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Initial discussion

This guidline appears to need an update. "Large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. Also loading time becomes an issue for slow internet connections. It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 50 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." 50K is not much these days. The internet is quicker. Just the disclaimers at the top of some article talk pages exceed that amount. An article I watch has a talk page size of 120K with an archive bot set to every 4 days and I'm constantly searching the archives. I propose raising this guidline to 2 megs or 200K. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see related discussion here (Talk:Pogrom#Archiving) on the potential for "tactical archiving". Oncenawhile (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

While generally faster internet connections have alleviated this issue, Wiki should remain fully accessible to everyone and these changed circumstances may not apply to in many instances.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the above editor is involved, with me and others, in the two underlying debates which "tactical archiving" may be being used to influence, on Talk:Pogrom and Talk:1929 Palestine riots. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that you recently stated, "Since we disagree, am I not correct that reverting to the WP:STATUSQUO is appropriate?". Can you explain why you have departed from this line of thinking and reverted my restoration of the original position? I shall remind what this policy says: "Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the issue with page size is often related to rendering, not internet speed, that smartphones and similar devices often still have slow speeds (and limited screen space), and that Wikipedia's mission is to bring information to everyone, not just those with fast internet speeds. This number will not be changing without consensus; per WP:BRD, please stop edit-warring this and start discussing. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, apologies for my revert. Somehow I didn't notice that Gary had actually amended the article, and thought that yours was the original change.

Personally I agree with Gary, but I agree that this needs a proper discussion if it is to be changed. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about slow phone connections or people with dial up. We should be catering to the majority of our users not the slim minority. Please note that this change was made 2 weeks and many people watch this page. Silence equal agreement in wikipedia terms so I would say at the very least a rough consensus has already been achieved. I also find it interesting that Jayjg the editor on Circumcision who keeps tweaking the archive bot and was the editor who set it at 4 days in my above post. It has also come to my attention that it's easy to bury discussions under the rug if you have an overactive archive bot, while any editor can come here and say well the guideline says 50k. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are making a contentious change to the archiving policy and I request that this change is thoroughly dicussed before this modification. I shall remind you that procedural policy states, "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits.". I say this as you have failed to disclose this when suggesting your change. Wikipedia has a much higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than other types of articles, since they reflect established consensus. Please respect these guidelines.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I followed the instructions at the top of this page and have been following WP:BRD. As for the edit you point out... I'm not a time traveler so I could not predict the future and that edit that I wrote today is in no way gameing the system. It is completely logical I would come here if I have an issue with talk page size guidlines. Why do you feel the need to attack me instead of dialog addressing my concerns? Garycompugeek (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you personally care about them, a number of people do access Wikipedia over slow connections or, indeed, on slow devices. I regularly check WP from my smartphone, and it takes a frustratingly long time to render even shorter pages. That's on a mid-range device; I can only imagine what it must be like for people using low-end equipment. Quadrupling the average page length would exacerbate the problem considerably. Jakew (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

50k Was the standard when Wikipedia was in its infancy. The internet is a 100x faster than it was a decade ago. Your point that we should cater to the minority and not the majority seems a bit archaic. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are considerably more complex than when Wikipedia was in its infancy, and much of the rendering speed is related to complexity of page (e.g. use of templates etc.), not size - as such, the 50k limit is more applicable now than ever. Moreover, smart phones, with their speed and size limitations, were not being used when Wikipedia was in its infancy, but they are an increasingly popular means of accessing the information here. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation's by-laws still state that its goals are to disseminate information globally, not just to the wealthy individuals who can afford fast computers on high speed connections. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

While there is a need to limit the size of talk pages, 50K is a very small number. I'm not sure it makes sense in the modern world, since 50K is even smaller than many articles. For example this project page is about 108K of source including all the markup stuff (depends on the skin). Is there a reason for limiting talk pages to a fraction of the size that articles themselves have? Surely the priority is the other way around? Anyway, what is the actual evidence? WP:Article size mentions rendering problems over 400K in some obsolete browsers. Do mobile devices apart from antiques have trouble with that size? Zero^talk 13:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Phones work over wireless networks which are relatively slow, and their screens are small. Anyway, Garycompugeek shouldn't be trying to edit-war in a policy change so he can win some content dispute. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So now I'm edit warring and have content disputes? I have followed WP:BRD policies and ask you to strike your comment. I find your comments very combative and have no content dispute with you. This has come to my attention because an editor keeps tweaking an archive bot and his defense is talk pages are supposed to be 50k per this guideline. I find this guideline quite archaic because it doesn't reflect the modern internet so I came here to lobby to change it. This is how guidelines get changed Plot Spoiler. If you disagree with my reasoning that is no reason to attack me and make false claims. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

These policies and guidelines reflect an established communal consensus and there is not sufficient support to implement your proposed modifications. While you have opined that this guideline is archaic, several editors have disagreed with this position and expressed support for the long-standing Wikipedia policy.Ankh.Morpork 16:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not support a change to 200k. 50k is big as it is, and we have to take into account that Wikipedia is used by people on cell phones and also in developing countries with poor Internet access. It strikes me as exceptionally myopic to change this guideline used Wikipedia-wide for 3,000,000+ pages without considering the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation in general. And really, is it so difficult to use the archive search function? Zad68 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again why should we cater to the minority???? This is an old guideline that needs to reflect the modern internet. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please substantiate your underlying premise that the majority of people that access Wikipedia do so using a modern internet connection. Then prove that they do so while using a device that can swiftly render a webpage, e.g. not a smart phone. Then establish why the benefit of catering to the minority of Wikipedia users is outweighed by adjusting the archive settings. Finally, demonstrate why you have selected the arbitrary figure of 200K to solve this issue. Thank you.Ankh.Morpork 17:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I never made that claim. I actually said the reverse, that the majority of users do not use dial up modems. Please stop misrepresenting me. I'm willing to compromise about the page size but figured we have to start somewhere. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork said nothing about dial up modems. Please stop misrepresenting him. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

you are correct jayjg, sorry AnkhMorpork. I misread modern for modem. It would seem logical that modern countries use the Internet the most and have the quickest speeds. Garycompugeek (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As you are still engaging on this issue I see you now agree with the others here that at this time there is no consensus to set the archiving guideline to 200k. (If you are still questioning it, please review WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, especially the part where it says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.") Regarding "why should we cater to the minority????" that is an interesting question, why don't you pose it to User:Jimbo Wales? Anxious to hear the results of your discussion with him on this topic. Zad68 (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be as widely compatible as is possible. I don't see any compelling reason to make using the site more difficult for smartphone or dial up users, even if they are a minority, beyond an apparent personal distaste for looking in the archives. We should keep this guideline at 50K, as it is. - MrOllie (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Ollie. Let's look at this a different way. I believe 50k is the original guideline. Why should this figure be set in stone? Under what circumstance should it be raised? Garycompugeek (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see many editors arguing that >50K is or is not a problem but I don't see an explanation as to why a <50K limit is a problem. Can someone clarify that for me? --Kvng (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kvng, here's some potential reasons why archiving too quickly could favour one editor over another:

1. If an editor is in support of the WP:STATUSQUO, they may make "tactically indirect" talk page comments which do not deal with the actual issue, thereby delaying dispute resolution. When this is done repeatedly, discussions can fizzle out to the advantage of the "tactically indirect" editor. But the point remains open. If archiving occurs too quickly, the discussion gets "filed away" before other editors have a chance to turn up to break the deadlock
2. If a debate turns into a heated dispute, neutral editors will analyse talk page comments to take a view as to how the issue began. Archiving too quickly may mean that the initial talk discussions get filed away, which may skew the perspective of the comments. An example from last week is when in an AE discussion, the admins involved did not notice that two weeks before a number of edits which turned up the heat on an article, objections had been set out on the talk page - it wasn't noticed because that thread had already been archived.
3. It is sometimes convenient for editors to do a u-turn on their debating positions. Archiving too quickly can allow such u-turns to be brushed under the carpet.
4. Some comments are open questions, intended to remain open until such time as an editor who has the information arrives. Some editors may prefer those questions were never answered.
5. A number of our readers habitually read the talk pages, as they can be as interesting as the articles themselves. If a page is "over-archived" it may give the impression that there is consensus for the current version of the article in situations where there are many unresolved issues.
6. Some editors can only edit "once in a while". Over archiving disadvantages such editors versus those who can edit every day.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I can see those problems arising if archiving is done after 30d and the minimum number of threads permitted is small. Maybe new limits need to focus more on age and number of topics than on size. I usually set archiving for 1 year and 5 threads minimum. I guess a talk page would quickly become unmanageable on a controversial or otherwise popular topic with these settings. --Kvng (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

50K?? This powers-of-ten madness must stop! All right-thinking people set limits in powers-of-two increments. The next step above 32768 (32K) is 65536 (64K), the way Gottfried Leibniz and George Boole intended!: :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC Comments

I have begun an RFC above, and set out the history as clearly as I can. Grateful for comments from all. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As this is a proposal to change a Wikipedia-wide recommendation, I have listed this discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. Zad68 (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the point is valid on both sides. The limits are too small, but people do need them to be pretty small for smartphone/slow-connection use. I propose that the limit be increased to 75kB, and that future increases should be in small increments. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable number to me. Go ahead and good luck! Jesse V. (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is outdated and should be changed completely

These days most active talk pages are auto-archived by bots such as MiszaBot. The existing wording should be deleted and replaced with a recommendation to use auto-archiving bots and configure them with values appropriate to the traffic of the page. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems sensible, but there does need to be at least a loose standard for manual archiving. I'd favor a time based rather than a size based protocol. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that archiving needs to be considered once it exceeds 50k, and if it is likely to grow again, tagged for auto-archiving. We then need to give loose guidance about how often threads should be archived, but it should be exceptional that a page exceeds 50k for more than 28 days. Edgepedia (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why 50k? My commodore "64"k had more ram in 1980. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2012 (UT

Please note that this is only a guideline. If the Wikipedia foundation that maintains the servers actually cared about this it would be a policy maintained by clerks. Why should it be kept at teeny tiny (50k) to serve the lowest common denominator of old computers, dial ups and slow phones? Garycompugeek (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Because we aim to transmit the free-est information possible to the most possible people. Not be the encyclopedia built by First World techgeeks for First World techgeeks. Rmhermen (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe we should lower it to 10K by that logic... Garycompugeek (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that this was never an agreed guideline - it used to be 32KB in edit boxes, which assuming 5 sections on a page is 160KB for the whole talk page. The move down to 50KB for the whole talk page seems to have been accidental (see diffs in intro to this RFC) and never found consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The guideline was changed over two years ago, and has stood since then. "Never an agreed guideline" is, in this context, a ridiculous claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You were involved in both previous discussions here and here. During these two discussions, no consensus was reached, and the participation was limited. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the issue with increasing the recommended page size, as noted above, is that

1. Smartphones and similar devices often still have slow internet connection speeds and limited screen size, and Wikipedia access from these devices is rapidly increasing.
2. Rendering speed is affected by many things, include page complexity, which has markedly increased because of (among other things) the use of templates.
3. The Wikimedia Foundation's mission is to bring information to everyone, not just rich Westerners with fast computers on high-speed internet links.

The latter point is perhaps the most crucial. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been suggested by me and by another user at Talk:Pogrom and Talk:Circumcision that it is possible that you had other, less altruistic, motives for drastically accelerating archiving times during debates that you were heavily involved in. Please could you comment on this for the benefit of this discussion? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of the basic procedures in operation at Wikipedia? Using the talk page of a guideline to suggest that another editor has some evil motivation for their comments is both absurd and not permitted. Please stick to the issues. Claims about another editor belong on another page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

When laws are being debated in the great Legislatures of the world, like the British House of Commons or the US House of Representatives, motives are publically questioned as a matter of course, every single day. I am aware of the wikipedia procedure you are referring to, but it has only been suggested that "it is possible" there is more to it than meets the eye. There is no way to prove otherwise, so I continue to AGF. Having said that, is it not appropriate that other parties here should be aware of which editors were the original protagonists and of the context of the original debate? All I am really saying is that Jayjg should have identified his previous involvement. I agree we should stick to the issues. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise re the RfC discussion points above, I suggest we focus the guideline only on the "10 main sections". This seems more intuitive, and perhaps brings out less emotion regarding people's judgement of computer speeds. It also has the benefit of being "timeless" as more than a certain number of main sections will always be difficult to read, irrespective of accelerating processing speeds. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if y'all could comment on my proposed solution one section above: increase the limit to 75KB as a compromise. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would endorse any increase but hoping for a more substantial one. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that two separate issues are bumping up against each other here: the desirability of limited page size to accommodate users with low connection speeds and the question of page size being used to justify premature archiving of ongoing threads (or recent threads that have a bearing on ongoing threads). On the second issue, I can only suggest that BRD should be practiced and consensus sought whenever archiving proves controversial, that page-size limits should never be bright lines but require a certain amount of flexibility according to context, and that recently archived discussions can always be linked and, if necessary, resurrected (on a subpage, if worst comes to worst and page size is growing out of control).

  As for the first issue, having interfaced with Wikipedia using a slow connection during most of my six years here, I can say with some confidence that page size is still very much a legitimate concern. It isn't the only determining factor in accessibility, but it definitely is a factor, and I suspect that anyone with a slow connection who has tried to stay abreast of some of the major RfCs we've had over the years would back me up on that. I think it's incumbent upon us to try to be as accessible as possible to as many users as possible. Casually choosing to leave an undetermined number of contributors out in the cold simply to make things more convenient for the most fortunate (read: wealthy, urban) users would be deeply unfair and not in the best interests of the project. Having said that, I doubt that 75KB would be a prohibitively large hurdle—it wouldn't have been for me—but I'd love to see some actual data on user connections to be more certain. Do we have any?

  As for number of sections on a page, I don't really see that it makes much difference. I've never edited using a device with a tiny screen, though, so I might well be wrong about that. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Better late than never, replying to bot on this RfC. I think 75 to 100K is more reasonable, with flexibility for when important threads are not finished or are very relevant to current threads. That really is the issue. And if there is strong objection to an unfinished thread being archived (manually OR by a bot), that objection should be taken seriously. CarolMooreDC 16:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I can live with this and I think it's important to mention the unfinished thead business also. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal"

Recently,[11] a user attempted to justify removing other editor's comments on an article talk page by quoiting "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal" from the How to use article talk pages section of this page. I referred him to WP:TPOC, but I wonder, should we clarify the "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal" wording? If not, perhaps explaining the policy on removing other editor's comments here so it can be referred to later would be useful. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the wording could be improved -- the word "irrelevant" can be misused (as we've seen). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I was the editor in question, and I apologize for being anal. I have seen much abuse of talk pages and BLP ones have stricter rules. I don't know if the policy can even be made more strict to include all statements made by any editor that does not add to the BLP article improvement. Certain unsourced statements about BLPs can be removed now and it is usually done by the OP after someone asks politely. I believe in articles about a BLP all content in dispute should be left out until consensus or policy is met. We should remember that there is no deadline like a newspaper and we don't sell copies based on 'dirty laundry' like tabloids. I do agree that notable things should be included, but in balance of text count, NPOV, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed the guidance to read "Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal" so it is now at least consistent with the detailed "refactoring" guidance later in the page (that is, it now suggests "archival" also); and the word "plainly" perhaps will help underline that only gibberish or "rants" etc should be removed. This text could probably still be improved further, of course. --Noleander (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose the removal of "irrelevant comments". It's immeasurably small as any possible benefit (bytes are cheap), and the irritation it causes amongst editors is itself harmful.

The "facebook" chat comments should certainly be discouraged. Posting a comment to that effect after the irrelevant ones is a reasonable response - but going so far as to delete another editor's comments always gives the risk of an angry reaction, and it's just not a matter that's so important to stop that it's worth the disruption.

To clarify here, by "irrelevant comment" I mean a post that is comprehensible, but is outside the scope of either the article, or the encyclopedia. So "How do I fix my car?" questions at Timing belt or Monobloc engine are OK if they're about "monobloc engines" (and maybe the article scope needs to be adjusted to cover this), and only "irrelevant" if they're clearly unrelated (and griping about garages is a common digression here)

Simple nonsense, "I haxxed Wiki" and the child poop-flingers are just the same old same old.

BLP comments are rarely "irrelevant". Irrelevant comments are irrelevant, but the main BLP problem is seeing talk: as a place where unfounded allegations can be aired without the citation requirements of articles. That's veryrelevant, and should be blanked (or revdel'ed) for its own reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel the opposite. If we make the policy more strict it may be interesting to see if it cleans up discussions. [Removed comment about another editor], [removed comment about an issue on another dispute page], [removed argument that has been repeated far too often]. Edits like this will make a few angry but after a while they will understand that they can't squabble like children and actually get down to settling the dispute.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you're just wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

[Irrelevant comment by Canoe1967 removed]

You're still wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

[More irrelevance by Canoe1967 removed]

No, you just don't understand. I can't believe your argument is so pointless and childish. (Canoe struck this comment towards another editor) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

[Another example of Canoe1967's irrelevance removed]

Do you see the problem here? Any acceptance of a channel for refactoring other editors (unless the comment is so bad that all would be compelled to agree that it doesn't belong) is just yet another opportunity for edit warring. At present we're relatively free of this. Editors manage to war on articles, but it's hard to do so on talk pages because it's either repetitive (thus unconvincing to the audience) or else it's obviously infra dig, thus they're soon discouraged or blocked from it. Allowing even a whisker of opportunity for one editor to refactor another editor's comments is going to create an opportunity for chaos. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point. If we use (if the comment is agreed to redaction by others) and not (unless the comment is so bad that all would be compelled to agree that it doesn't belong) it may work. There may be revision wars of redactions but then admin can just go through and delete crap as they see fit? We could also try stikethrough as I did above and allow the OP to redact then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It just won't work. WP:Nobody reads the directions anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just suggesting we try it. If it fails then some may learn better editing and others may suggest better policy. To just say it won't work [I won't comment on].--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant comments need to be subject to removal. I think we all agree that talk pages are not meant to be web forums, right? Maybe it's just that I have different articles on my watchlist compared to some of the editors here, but it can be a serious problem on some articles and with some editors. There are editors, few in number I agree, who only want to argue about the subject of the articles and whose posts are not at all aimed at changing the article. Why would we allow that? And it's a fact that once this is allowed to stay, others see it and join in with similar irrelevant comments. And if a comment is actually relevant and is removed, we can deal with that. If someone asks an irrelevant question if we can point the editor to a suitable reference desk and make it clear that such questions should be asked there, then we can leave that as an example. But irrelevant discussions are not helpful and can cause problems (especially when as so often on some articles they are just nationalistic pov arguments, etc). Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"particular editors"

Then address that editor specifically. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you followed pages like Talk:Barack Obama where messages are often removed (misguided rants, subtle trolling, and occasional attacks)? There are plenty of pages where that occurs. In a perfect world we would provide individual counselling to the accounts or IPs involved, but there are more of them than us, and it is simply not possible to explain some things to some people. There is no requirement that every dubious message be removed, but in some places there are some messages which do need to be removed in order to maintain community norms. Like everything that occurs here, it is not possible to prescribe exactly which messages are ok and which should be removed, but if editors fail to maintain the purpose of talk pages, an "anything goes" culture will flourish and we may as well declare every page to be a forum.

OTOH, I have seen cases where a group of established editors are bitterly arguing some point, and one participant removes a comment by another, claiming a violation of WP:TPG. I agree that such removals are unwise—a kind of INVOLVED applies where it is unhelpful to "redact personal attack" when you are part of an ongoing argument. That kind of situation warrants the tedious "address that editor specifically", and I would say that if something is so bad that it "must" be removed, and the author declines to remove it, then ANI is required. But comments by inexperienced editors that are badly misguided need to be removed to prevent talk pages spiraling out of control. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And to reduce spam. Some people post completely unrelated "comments" that are just spam for the product they're selling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see Special:Contributions/72.129.74.71 for a spectacular example of that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2012

From the "good practices" section:

• Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate.

Proposed replacement:

• 
  Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate.

Changelog: Spelled out full name of wp: namespace, replaced underlines in link with spaces, moved the * so all related content is under the same bullet point. The source code is a little messier this way, but I don't know of any better solution. 81.231.245.214 (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I got rid of the underscores and substituted "Wikipedia:" for "WP:" but when I copied your code the point ended up not showing at all. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not create a page solely to place the Talk header template on it?

The advice not to place {{Talk header}} on a blank talkpage does not seem to match usage, nor is supportive of readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures. The Foundation is keen to encourage more users to get involved in feedback on articles, so we should be encouraging people to use the talkpage and we should give advice on how to use the talkpage. The assumption behind advising not to place {{Talk header}} is that everyone who wishes to communicate knows how to, and that a lack of existing discussion implies nobody wishes to communicate. I think that assumption is misplaced. A lack of discussion may be down to a lack of encouragement and advice on how to communicate, and the Talk header template would provide both that advice and encouragement. I think it should be down to individual judgement as to which talkpages would benefit from using this template. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen very many individuals creating a talk page with nothing on it except a talk header template. The much more common thing is to create the page for WikiProject tags, in which case that advice does not apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's usually {{Talk header}} plus a WikiProject tag or two. The WikiProject tag often coming first. It's useful to have the {{Talk header}} up before there are attempts at discussion - talkpages without {{Talk header}} can have incorrectly formatted discussions which are hard to follow. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the {{Talk header}} documentation: "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page. Do not create a talk page just to add this template." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The {{Talk header}} documentation is based on this guideline, so we'd be going in an eternal circle if we used that criteria! My point is that it should be up to the judgement of editors on the spot if an article would benefit from some talkpage guidance. How do we know if a reader/user needs guidance to use a talkpage if a talkpage doesn't even exist? Where is a new or potential new user or even a general reader meant to leave their comment or query if there is no talkpage, and there is no guidance? {{Talk header}} encourages and assists feedback and communication, and guides people in the right direction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Add it, don't add it. I have removed it from non-contentious talk pages, and have never added it to any talk page. In the scheme of things, this is a pretty minor issue, but the discussion keeps coming up. The template is not going to magically calm down a bunch of pissed off editors. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, new users would find out about talk pages by first encountering their own User talk: page - a message would be sent to them very soon after registration, or soon after the first edit. Such a message should include information on using talk pages (at the very least, a link to either WP:TP or WP:TPG) and some of the Welcome templates - such as {{subst:WelcomeMenu}} do this.

It seems to me that sending a welcome message to all new users would involve many fewer edits than putting a {{talk header}} on every article talk/template talk/etc. talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. And exactly what I do— whenever I see a redlink user talk page, I add a welcome using Twinkle. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The template docs have carried this injunction since January 2007, at which point the template's existence was not mentioned on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing. We seem to be bouncing back and forth between here and the template documentation. The talkheader documentation saying "Do not create a talk page just to add this template" was restored by you "because [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Creating_talk_pages]] says not to create talk pages for the sole purpose of adding this template". If information is an echo/mirror of what happens elsewhere, then when elsewhere is updated, then the echo/mirror is also updated. My point is, that arguments to avoid updating a page because it now puts the echo/mirror out of sync, are not pertinent - what should happen is that the echo/mirror is also updated.

It can be useful, however, to trace the history of why something was added - and certainly we can tell from four five (just found another one) previous AfDs, that there have been people in the past who did not see the value of the template, though for each AfD there was very strong consensus to keep the template because of its aid to new users. Looking at the AfDs, it appears that DragonHawk (who was in favour of the template), added the advice not to use it on blank talkpages as a concession to those who disliked the template, as one of the complaints was that it turned red talkpage links red and some users felt that signified a discussion was taking place and would then be frustrated when looking at the talkpage only to find a template.

Returning to the discussion on the value of the injunction not to place {{Talk header}} on a blank talkpage. I am not aware of that injunction being placed on any other talkpage templates, such as Wikiproject banners, Article history, Connected contributor, Press, Maintained, Find sources, etc. The injunction doesn't make sense for, say, an article that has just been created on a topic that might attract attention from new users. The creator of the article has to wait until either somebody adds a Wikiproject banner, or somebody starts talking, before adding a template which gives advice on how to use the talkpage.

What I am suggesting is that we allow editors to use common sense and their own judgement as to when to place the template. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I was the one who edited the docs to add the statement. There was some discussion here (on this talk page) that prompted it. I wouldn't call it a "concession", as that might imply there was some kind of strong consensus in favor of this template, and there isn't. Some really dislike this template and think it should be deleted. Some really like this template and think it should automatically appear at the top of every talk page. (Full disclosure: I belong to the latter group.) I see manually adding it to pages in bulk as (1) woefully inefficient and (2) an end-run around the consensus process. If it should be on every page, we should get consensus for that and put it in the appropriate software hook and be done with it. If there isn't consensus to put it on every page, people shouldn't be putting it on every page that might possibly someday have discussion on it. If we're really that concerned about newcomers not being able to figure out how to engage in discussion (and maybe we should be), we need to address that head on. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking part DragonHawk. The discussion is not about adding it to pages in bulk, nor to every page, but about lifting the restriction on placing it on empty talk pages. My feeling is that an editor should be allowed to use judgement on when to add the template. I also feel that once the template has been added, people should not be removing it, as that would encourage pointless edit wars, such as over British/American spelling. Once placed on a page, leave it there. But also, do not go on a mission to place it on every talkpage.

The Foundation have launched some initiatives to encourage discussion, feedback and involvement. I don't agree with all of them - the article feedback template that is currently being trialled I find intrusive as it appears on the article page, and asks the wrong question: "Did you find what you are looking for?" The answer is mostly going to be "Yes", because generally what people are looking for is information on a topic, and the article supplies that information. Is the information up to date, accurate, and comprehensive? Well, if you don't know the topic, then you don't know, and you'd need to do further research. What I'd prefer is an encouragement to leave comments, such as "You may leave comments regarding this article on the talk page". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's silly to include it on a talk page that has no discussion, and I think that including it everywhere makes it less effective, by making it be part of the background noise. And we already have an automatic notice on how to use a talk page every time you edit one, including if you click on a red link. On Talk: pages, it says " This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~.", with suitable links for people who want to learn more.

And I asked above about whether you'd encountered anyone actually wanting to put just the talkheader template on a page, with absolutely nothing else, and it looks like the answer is "no". So why should we support a behavior that nobody is actually doing or apparently wanting to do in practice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's about lifting a restriction that is inappropriate, and is not applied to any other talkpage template. My point above, is that if an article is created which may be of interest to inexperienced users (something topical and in the media), and an editor feels that inexperienced users may want to comment on the article, and may want guidance as to how to do that, then they should be allowed to put the template on the talkpage without waiting for another template to be placed first, or for an experienced Wikipedian to start a discussion. Is there any valid reason why {{Talk header}} is disallowed, but a WikiProject banner - for example - is allowed? The argument that it turns a red link blue applies to every talkpage template. There is a lack of logic, common-sense and consistency here, as well as a degree of prejudice against new or inexperienced users. I'm not saying "everywhere", I'm saying where an editor feels it is appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't put unneeded talk headers and the reason is clear to those familiar with how to sign highways. Highway engineering guides state to post the minimum amount of signs absolutely necessary. Studies have shown, again and again, that the more signs you put on roads, the less drivers actually pay attention. So, while it used to be standard to put a warning sign before every big hill, now they don't do it, since in most cases the driver can see the hill long before they would see a sign about it. As the talk header appears on more and more pages, users and editors will ignore it more and more. And, let's not forget all the other banners on talk pages - if the talk header distracts attention away from an arbitration committee decision, it's clearly a very bad thing. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A {{talk header}} gives information to newbies, this is true: but it is of absolutely no use to experienced editors. We should all know how to add to existing threads; start new threads; sign posts; follow WP:CIVIL etc. However, looking elsewhere it's clear that some of these are ignored even by users with 5+ years and/or 33,000+ edits, so {{talk header}} or no, these people will continue to ignore what it says in that box.

By contrast, WikiProject banners provide information useful even to experienced editors - at the very least, they indicate that, say, Wotton (GCR) railway station is of interest to both Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains; Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations; and Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways; and Wikipedia:WikiProject Buckinghamshire. If general advice is sought about improving this type of article (not necessarily this specific one), you can post messages to one or more of these projects. The project banners may also provide information - the class and importance are available in most projects; many also offer a parameter menaing "an image is required", etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In the rare instance (rare enough that no one's thought of an actual example during these discussions) of a new article for which an editor believes the template would be useful, but doesn't have anything else to say on the talk page, then the editor can invoke IAR. We're talking about a guideline and the documentation page for a template, not an absolute law.

I agree with RedRose about WikiProject banners: they provide useful information, and they are inherently functional, since they enable several WikiProject and assessment bots. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

hat

Should {{hat}}s be signed? Nobody Ent 14:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. They don't add any actual content. It's like WikiProject banners - the only people who sign those are people who are pretty new to the practice of WikiProject tagging. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Interruptions subsection unclear

In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment...

This sounds like if an editor has a long contribution you can just interrupt it with a comment or a section title. That can't be right. Does it mean that or does it mean a thread? Aren't you supposed to just quote the relevant part? And if an editor keeps interrupting every one of one's points with their replies, I assume one can object and put back one's contiguous comment and just copy their whole reply which quotes everything said above. That's what I do anyway. Having to do it to same editor twice in two days and now see the policy is a bit unclear. CarolMooreDC 18:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

External links

Link freely, the article says, but apparently we now have a spam filter that blocks external links in discussion pages. This is really unhelpful as I’m trying to assemble useful citations, not all of which necessarily needs to be referenced in the article, but can be good to have ‘on the record’ nonetheless. Can we still do this or not? ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 05:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0

I've been trying to remove an off-topic section at Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 for a few days, but the thread creator seems to think it isn't off-topic. The topic being discussed is unrelated to the topic of the aritcle, WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0. My hat and close were deleted, and the topic thread initiator seems to think it is on-topic. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you post a neutrally worded note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, directing them to Talk:WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 and asking for their opinion. Please be careful about WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Replying after a long period of time

Should comments that have been made after a long period of time (as well as one that are placed in the middle of the conversation) be removed at all? For instance this comment was made a year after the original comment and was placed in the middle of the conversation. --Shadow (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's germane to the discussion and there's no confusion over who wrote it and when, there's not a problem (imho). Rivertorch (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Some newbies feel that any existing talk page thread invites a comment - even when the matter was dealt with some time earlier. I might leave a note like this, only to receive this reply (over about a week, that user made comments on several other old discussions); or I might set up the page to archive off threads more than a year old, like this. But I don't remove late-to-the-party comments, unless they are off-topic and abusive - and even then I check WP:TPO. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I know other Wiki/Wikia sites let you remove those so I wanted to make sure Wikipedia did or did not before I edited. Thanks again! --Shadow (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Contributions of topic banned editors

How should talk page discussions of topic banned editors be weighed when considering article content? Is the answer different for editors who are indefinitely topic banned? After a topic ban expires, should the past contributions be considered in a different light? aprock (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:TBAN, but for specifics, see the final resolution for the editor concerned. But generally, banned means banned: if the post was made after the imposition of the ban, and before its expiry, such posts should carry no weight - I've seen them reverted before. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am specifically referring to their talk page discussion before the ban. aprock (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I gather this question arises in connection with Race and intelligence. Not sure what the specific goal is -- perhaps tell us? In any event, it's doubtful that a universal answer makes sense. If it's a question of a talk-page post made before a ban, then it would probably matter if such posts were made in a way that contributed to the decision to ban the editor (i.e., if it formed some sort of misbehaviour). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Bans are not retroactive, so the comments should be weighed as any other editor's in good standing. NE Ent 16:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The goal is to clarify to policy. There doesn't appear to be any policy on this page, or on WP:TBAN which speaks to the issue. Does it make sense to update either (or both) of the pages to make this explicit? aprock (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Its entirely circumstantial. If an editor is topic banned for violating civil in discussions related to a topic, the topic ban doesn't undermine any previous arguments. Even if the reason for the topic ban does undermine the weight their past arguments should carry, its really up to those considering the arguments to figure out. A topic ban is never justification for removing arguments made prior to enactment. Monty₈₄₅ 03:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing/deleting/hiding other user's comments

The current advice on off-topic comments is to hide them. People resort to hiding too soon, and some people even delete comments, even if they are somewhat on-topic.

This leads to a vicious circle of people arriving at the article, not finding any comments and thus adding their own... some other people explaining that this has already been dealt with, and then all these comments get hidden. The next person to pass by sees nothing discussed yet, and thus starts a new heading on the very same topic, ad infinum. This becomes very frustrating for all involved.

If people become too quick with the trigger finger and outright delete comments, it gets interesting indeed. At Paul Revere's Ride , people who missed seeing their comments back decided to assume the worst. Next day, there were headlines in all the papers to the tune of: "Sarah Palin supporters edit warring on Wikipedia, and censoring all comers".

With such a history, I would suggest at least rescinding the recommendation, or better, make it a blockable offence. ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. If the comment is vandalism, soapboxing, using the TP as a forum, or is not related to the discussion of a Reliable Source to the betterment of the article, what use is it? These things need to be deleted by (experienced) users or Administrators (who are often too swamped to monitor every single TP), so that's when the community must step in. At the top of every TP is a warning/guide of what the TP is and is NOT for. Seems clear as crystal, and editors should follow the policy. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Notes

Music Writing Texture Text Compositions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.30.29 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Avoid Excessive Emphasis addition

The section Avoid Excessive Emphasis, also known as Wikipedia:SHOUTING states that the use of ALL CAPITALS is considered shouting and should be avoided, restating a rule that predates Wikipedia and has been accepted by the Internet community, since the Internet was the ARPANET. It says to use bolding and italics sparingly. So far, so good. However, on one article talk page, a user has used a different method of shouting, and that is to introduce a Wiki command to increase the font size by three levels. I would like to add a mention that increasing the font size on a talk page is considered shouting. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In particular, the editor inserted something to the effect of: " Reliable scholarship <font size="+3">not just (XXX) scholarship</font> ". The effect of that is even worse than block capitals. I would like to add a mention that increasing the font size on a talk page is shouting. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was bold and went ahead and added the language. I also gave the user a trout for coming up with a new way to shout. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I amended it by removing the word "Wiki", because AFAIK there is no Wiki markup which changes font size, other than ==...== which is used to make headings. Markup like <big>...</big> and <font size="value">...</font> are pure HTML markup, whereas <span style="font-size:value">...</span> is HTML markup which achieves its effect by using CSS for the actual styling. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, as long as increasing the font size is discouraged as a form of shouting. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Where's my orange bar of doom?

I just logged on and it took me several minutes to notice the little (2) next to my name indicating I had two new messages. After six years I am kind of used the screaming orange bar popping up on every page I look at until I check my talk page. Was this just a bug or did we do away with the orange bar? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

New feature NE Ent 00:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is supposed to be back next week. See the RFC for discussion. Apteva (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Mis-use of "FAQ's" and other header-embedded items to enshrine or further one's opinions

I've seen this at many articles. Typically this is where there there is an ongoing tussle at the article (which typically is where the article covers a topic where there are opposing factions in the real world). And some person or faction embeds their arguments, or material supporting their quest, or material which will help their efforts in talk as "FAQ's" in the talk page. Of course they do it in a way that subtly does this. This puts it in a place that has prominence and doesn't get archived, and has the appearance of authority.

I believe that something should be added to this guideline to reduce that type of activity. Something like: "Except for standardized customary notices, contested or controversial material should not be put into the talk page header." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

North8000 makes a very good point, but I think we need a better wording. I am thinking of the FAQ at Talk:Muhammad, which was placed there because it was contested and controversial, and it was explicitly written to support one faction. It's OK in that case, because a lot of work went into establishing that the "no images of Muhammad" faction, though large and vocal, are going against Wikipedia consensus and policy. On the other hand, we don't want to allow that to happen when it's just an ordinary content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the bar should be pretty high. Low enough to allow the special case that you described, but high enough to exclude trying to eternally "lock in" the results of a routine RFC. Maybe add another exception which would be group decisions where it was determined that policy (not just opinion) clearly determined the result. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. That sound like the right way to approach it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How 'bout this: "Contested or controversial material should not be embedded into the talk page header. Exceptions to this are items which are clearly routine or customary notices, or notes on decisions where there was a strong consensus that Wikipedia policy dictated the result. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That kind of wording is just going to give every passing wikilawyer an excuse to demand removal of the FAQ—I contest the FAQ, so prove policy dictated the result! For example, Talk:Evolution has quite a long FAQ which does not get much of a workout these days. However, what if a finger-in-ears editor turns up and demands that each point be proven to be dictated by policy because this guideline requires it? That would be unnecessary noise. Like everything on every page, a FAQ can be edited (or removed) by consensus, and if necessary an RfC can be used to get wider discussion. However, why give another reason for disruption? Another example is at Talk:Barack Obama where the FAQ is just a summary of previous arguments so they don't have to be dug up and posted whenever a new editor wants to raise an old point. Lots of people disagree with what happens at that page, but changing the talk page guideline would not help. Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right, John. The fact that the FAQ at talk:Barack Obama is just a summary of previous arguments, as you point out, didn't stop this recent edit war over it — did you see that? I had to block the stubborn editor. Finger-in-ears editors don't need any extra excuse for wikilawyering about a FAQ, when the article is highly contested. But I guess the proposed wording would have made the situation worse. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC).

IMO, FAQ's are typically one person's version of what has been decided, or a construction to help that POV prevail. And yet it is embedded in a place that has more permanence and imprimatur than the opinions of others. IMHO, for that type of a thing in the header, "when in doubt, take it out". The header is a place for header stuff, not a place to embed one's opinions, nor a tool to help one side's POV prevail. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think North8000 makes a very good point. It isn't at all obvious what wording best addresses the various concerns brought up in this thread, but they are all legitimate concerns, and we do need a clear policy on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't. I'm sure that FAQs have been misused on occasion (what feature hasn't?), but by and large they are written to reflect consensus and to deter an endless parade of IPs and newbies from reopening archived discussions that dragged on ad nauseam to the detriment of everyone's time, attention, and patience. Without an FAQ, many a talk page watcher finds himself or herself answering the exact same question over and over and over. It's understandable that some editors are unhappy when the consensus-based wording in an FAQ conflicts with their own views, but that's life and that's Wikipedia. We absolutely do not need instruction creep in this area. Rivertorch (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's review, shall we? User:North8000 says that he has seen many articles where a person or faction embeds their POV in a FAQ, thus avoiding archiving and giving it prominence and the appearance of authority. He wants the guideline to say that contested or controversial material should not be put into talk page headers. User:Rivertorch says that most FAQs reflect consensus, that contested or controversial material should be allowed in FAQs, and that our answer to editors who are unhappy with opposing POVs in FAQs should be "that's life and that's Wikipedia."

It appears to me that this can easily be settled by looking at specific examples provided by North8000 and evaluating whether the FAQ reflects consensus, as Rivertorch claims, or whether there is a clear bias towards one POV. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Settled? Perhaps. Easily? Not a chance. (And your paraphrase of what I said isn't quite on the mark, but I'm not in the mood for what may be viewed as quibbling.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Point well taken. I encourage the reader to read North8000 and Rivertorch's own words in context rather than relying on my imperfect paraphrase. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Homophobia. But North8000 can't say that cause of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchiveNorth8000_Discussion NE Ent 09:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the one that brought it to mind / a catalyst was a recent/current friendly debate about one at wp:rs. In this case, being on a guideline page, where it has/had the higher impact of giving the impression that it was policy. But I've overall drawn from observing a continuous stream of them over time. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have thought about a "2 birds with one stone" solution. On one hand, we have the problem that FAQ's tend to embed/enshrine one person's or one side's preferred "take" on something. On the other hand, important decisions or pseudo-decisions at an article seem to be quickly forgotten when there is not some note on them. Not that they can't change, but awareness of them is good. What about something that (on contested items) just notes the topic of them and then links to them. Maybe up to 6, weighted by an informal combination of the scope of participation, clearness of any decision and how recent it was. That way those retains some visibility/prominence but people can look for themselves instead of reading one person's embedded/enshrined opinion on it. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not "one person's . . . opinion". One person may write it in the first place (as is usually the case with all content on Wikipedia) but anyone who contributes to the page is free to discuss it, change it, expand it or remove it. There's nothing special about FAQ content: it's subject to consensus in the same way that everything else is. Rivertorch (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that would be ideal, but I believe that in practice most editors treat it as more embedded / enshrined / "official looking" than that. Also I believe that only a minority of people know where to find the text to edit it, it's not on the page. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So Wikipedia ends up have a talk page discussion about a talk page about an article ... often dubious and contrary to consensus can change anyway. NE Ent 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am still looking for a good argument against adding some variation of "Except for standardized customary notices, contested or controversial material should not be put into the talk page header." to the talk page guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems backwards. I'm still waiting to hear a good argument for adding it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support GM's suggested edit. NE Ent 09:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines do not spell out all the things that should not be done. Of course there should no contested or controversial material in a talk page header, but is the FAQ at Talk:Evolution "contested and controversial" because some creationists support that view? What is the actual problem that people are trying to solve here? If there is something contested and controversial in the header at Talk:Homophobia, would someone please spell it out, then start an RfC so it can be removed. However, changing this guideline would not help that process. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are good points. Based upon the above arguments, I have changed my mind (is that even allowed on the Internet?). The added wording is not needed. Sorry, North8000. It seemed like a good idea at the time. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I think that we just saw an example of it considered to be more entrenched by at least some. Johnuniq sort of just said that you need an RFC to change it. North8000 (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about the background to Talk:Homophobia, but I infer from some comments made above that there was a controversy there, and given the topic of this discussion I assume a FAQ on that page was involved. If an editor does not like a FAQ, discuss it on the talk page concerned. If local consensus does not support the concern, and if there is reason to believe that the general community would disagree with the local consensus, start an RfC. If a creationist were to do that regarding the evolution FAQ, we would hope that the RfC would be closed early because it is disruptive to revisit old battles with a known outcome. At any rate, it would not help if a guideline stated that a controversial FAQ is not permitted because one side would believe the FAQ is controversial, while the other would assert that it's not. Johnuniq (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how this got derailed into talking about one particular article. Again, my catalyst for thinking about it was a recent/current friendly discussion at wp:rs, and the perspective that I'm drawing from is seeing it at many many articles during 32k of manual edits. But I plan to set this aside for now. If I bring it up again, it would probably be a different approach, which is to just say that material of that that type in the header is subject to the same editing practices as the material on the article page. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Assuming I understand it correctly, I agree with what you just said. Rivertorch (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy's suggestion amounts to "Let's ban all FAQs". It would also appear to ban customized headers, like the ones directed at newbies to tell them that they're on the wrong page, because those are not "standardized", and anything could be "controversial". I once had a lengthy dispute with someone who thought that the WP:1.0 team assessment of "his" article was an insult. I oppose it. At minimum it fails to communicate what it intends to ban; at best, it adds another needless layer of bureaucracy.

North's problem does not appear to emanate from an article. It appears to be about lingering dissatisfaction with the FAQ at WT:V and WT:RS, which can be read at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/FAQ. I suggest reading it. If you've spent any significant time at RSN, you will recognize those questions as being frequently asked ones. North's problem, if you're curious, is with the item that says you may not remove verifiable, well-sourced material solely on the grounds that you personally know that the sources are wrong. He has failed on WT:RS to convince anyone that this is actually wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So far that's two people that have made 2 different wrong guesses that I had only one article in mind and different guesses on which article it is. I actually have about 8 in mind. As I mentioned above, that friendly discussion at wp:rs there is what reminded me to bring this up, but is not the reason. Also the title of this thread is NOT applicable to that situation. The entry there (that I wass discussing) is a good faith effort to impart useful advice. I actually left that discussion about 2 weeks ago. The result isn't perfect/preferable, but I'm not unhappy with it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that "Guy's suggestion amounts to 'Let's ban all FAQs'." if anything, my suggestion was to ban one-sided FAQS written by one side in an ongoing unsettled dispute without banning those that have a consensus supporting them. BTW, asking a simple question like "it sounds to me like your suggestion amounts to 'Let's ban all FAQs'. was that your intent?" goes a long way toward finding a consensus and avoiding misunderstanding. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm ready to either shelf my effort on this or to evolve this conversation further depending on what others here think. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not praise

We say "Do not praise in headings: You might wish to commend a particular edit, but this could be seen in a different light by someone who disagrees with the edit."

That's a very strong command, and it is pretty silly. Don't say "Congratulations on Featured Article of The Day" in a heading? That's "praise" and it's in a heading. So why exactly shouldn't we say things like that?

As for it being "consistent", that list already fails to be consistent, since the four items run "Do not", "Do not", "Don't" and "Never use". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to fixing those inconsistencies (I noticed them). Your inconsistency was substantive as the points are all imperative except your revision. The talk page link you provide is a good example of something that shouldn't be on a talk page - even the person who posted it sensed it ("I know that this isn't a conversation forum"). Finally, even a command may have exceptions. The issue is whether there is a sufficient number of exceptions to use a weasel word like "avoid" and if you can somehow explain what those exceptions are.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Avoid" is also an imperative. "You should avoid ____" is the conditional; "Avoid ____" is the imperative.

IMO a section heading that contains praising words like "Congratulations" is perfectly acceptable. Moreover, it is commonly done, which means that it has widespread acceptance in the community. Furthermore, this section isn't about article talk pages, but includes WikiProject talk pages and user talk pages, so it would ban sections like Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive W#In praise of Wikipedia editors as well. Maybe instead of softening this rather inappropriate command, we should think about removing it altogether. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Headings just need to be neutral. Praise is not neutral. Apteva (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Not creating 4-5-6 new current threads on same topic

I looked through and couldn't find anything about editors who create 4 or 5 brand new main sections, separated by other new threads from the original section; and this is in the same week - ie during current discussions. This to keep discussing the same topic, long after it's clear no one agrees with them. I put the first four together, now there's # 5. Did I miss the guideline here or is it somewhere else. Very frustrating. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is adequately covered just by saying that "Before starting a new discussion, ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic. Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic." The Talk:LewRockwell.com page is a good example of what not to do in terms of directing comments to participants instead of to the topic, though. Comments are never directed to a participant, and are always directed to the group. This does need to be better clarified. Apteva (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, we have been bringing things back on topic lately. Thanks for quote; was looking too much in bad practices. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I hear that the mobile software has a significant limitation on this point, so the user may be unable to comply with the best practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOSTRIKE and WP:REDACT

There is a conflict between WP:NOSTRIKE, which "bans" strikethough text for accessibility reasons, and WP:REDACT (here), which encourages it in redacting comments which have been replied to. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#WP:NOSTRIKE and WP:REDACT for a centralized discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flow

In case anyone isn't aware of this already, Wikipedia:Flow is software that is planned to replace our current way of editing talk pages. I would encourage you all to take a look and possibly comment on the project. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK

Editors are permitted to archive or remove content from "their own talk pages", but I am wondering what is counted as one's own talk page in the case of someone with a dynamic IP address, such as myself. It happens from time to time that someone will post a comment to me on a talk page for whatever IP address my ISP happens to assign me this time around that results in a discussion. That discussion can go on for a while, meaning that sometimes when I come back to reply again, my IP address is different. In such cases, I always make an effort to make it clear that I am the same editor so as to avoid confusion about the different address. Now if I had a static IP address or were editing from an account, there would be no issue of whether or not I could archive or remove discussions. It seems to me that if a discussion were about editing I was involved in and the conversation were directed to me and I participated in it that I should be able to count the talk page as "my own" for the purposes of archiving or removing those discussions, even after my ISP has assigned me a new IP address. Does this seem correct? 99.192.90.228 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This issue has bothered me for a long time. In my view, the ability of an editor to remove content from their talk page should NOT apply to IP addresses, whether Geolocate says they are static or dynamic (Geolocate isn't always correct, and I don't know how to verify whether an IP address is static OR whether it will always remain static). I understand that some comments are directed at the individual currently logged in as that IP and it is understandable that they may want to remove it. However, (a) there's no way of verifying that point and (b) Wikipedia needs the history of the IP account on the talk page itself, not just in the revision history. If an individual wants more control of their talk page, they can register.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup as far as I have always been aware, it doesn't apply to IPs. Atleast that is how I have see it treated in the past. And that is how I would want it to be treated. -DJSasso (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems logical. --Nouniquenames 17:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• If we were to change OWNTALK to indicate that it doesn't apply to IPs, we would also have to take into account WP:BLANKING. As it is currently worded, an IP cannot remove "templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address." The implication of that prohibition is that they can remove other material.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does imply that. Anyway, if we make the change you have in mind, we can simply start the sentence about specific items not to be removed with something like "in particular, you may not remove...". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there an actual page on which this is a problem? NE Ent 21:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:99.192.59.98 seems to be the page which prompted this discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh. So I set up ClueBot to archive the old stuff. Problem solved? NE Ent 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, this is something that comes up often. I've reverted IP's removal of information from talk pages, but because the "policy" is unclear, when they've reverted back, which they have, I've dropped it. There doesn't have to be a current page on which this is a problem; it's a recurring problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have publicly stated my personal view that the benefits of mandatory account creation would outweigh the downsides, and one such benefit is that it would avoid to dealing with the complications of single editors using Wikipedia from ever-changing IP addresses, which confuses the applications of guidelines such as this one, but also proper edit attribution. I do not believe changing this guideline to accomodate the particularities of accountless editors to be needed and while I understand the current consensus that users should be allowed to edit without an account, I think there is no reason not to encourage recurrent contributors to register and autoconfirm (or confirm) in order to access the full range of Wikipedia's functionalities. Salvidrim! ✉ 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously. Just register an account. There's literally no reason not to. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 05:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally in agreement that if an IP editor wants to maintain continuity across multiple IP addresses, even to the extent of "archiving" content on an IP address that is not his own, then really an account is the method to obtain that continuity.

I certainly do not agree that IP editors should be denied the same rights that registered editors have. We do know that most IP editors will be editing on IPs previously used by people other than themselves. We also know that registered editors are editing on accounts that should not be used by people other than themselves. On that basis, IP editors should have more right to remove warnings that do not relate to them, not less. Our not being able to "prove" that the warnings relate to them is neither here nor there - see WP:AGF.

After all, the purpose of allowing unregistered people to edit is to encourage their editing; how encouraging is it if they make an edit to improve a Wikipedia article, they see an orange bar with a complaint about them, they click on the orange bar, it lists warnings which they know do not relate to them (the warning also mentions that possibility, remember), so they rightly remove the warnings, and immediately they have some guy restoring the warning and telling them not to do that! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

One way to avoid that result would be for the IP to respond to the warning rather than remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Which registered editors could also do - but we don't force them to do it. So my point stands.

A large proportion of IP editors don't even understand why it is that their IP address was previously used by a different person, never mind manage to respond thoughtfully to messages left for that different person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Registered accounts are kind of like residences with long term leases. You gotta follow some rules the landlord sets, but you can pretty much decorate however you want. Dynamic IP address accounts are like hotel rooms -- you're there for awhile and then you. If you check into a room and find the maid didn't clean up very well you should be able to take out the trash. So if the current user of an IP address wants to dump a message, what exactly is the harm?? NE Ent 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty poor analogy. It is typically IP editors who leave crap all around the place that needs cleaning up. WP:OWNTALK requires an OWNer -- something manifestly lacking with IP usertalk pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the last few points, I don't think anyone here voiced anything against that -- a user on an IP address is perfectly entitled to blank his own talk pages, whether it bears warnings of earlier users of the same address or they were meant for him. This is more about editors whose IP address has changed, and wish to maintain the same rights over the pages of their previous addresses. Like keeping the keys to your previous hotel room, if you wish. At least that was the OP's original question and that's what I responded to. Salvidrim! ✉ 03:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The original question is not what is now at issue here. I am proposing a change to the guideline.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You've not provided any form of coherent rationale for such a change. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've copied all of the above to WP:VPP and added an introduction.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a very strong reason why IP address users should not be permitted to manage their talk pages in the same way as registered users can. A registered user's talk page is the property of that user. The talk page of a static IP address may be the property of a single unregistered user, but even a static IP address may be shared between multiple users. Allowing an unregistered user to archive or delete vandalism warnings from the talk page would be a terrible idea; it would allow vandals to conceal evidence that there has already been a vandalism warning, or multiple vandalism warnings. It would complicate the job of experienced editors reverting vandalism in deciding what level of warning to provide, and of administrators in deciding whether it is time to block. This issue in particular arises with blocks assigned to schools. It is true that an experienced editor or an administrator can view the history of a talk page and see that there were warnings that have been deleted, but it would complicate a function that should be straightforward. Permitting IP addresses to delete messages from their talk pages would be a gift to vandals that would outweigh any benefit to the community. This is a case where unregistered users should not have the same rights as registered users. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Exceptional cases

1) Any edit to any page, including an IP's talk page, that would qualify for WP:Revision deletion can be removed by anyone at any time. WP:ATTACKs, WP:OUTINGs and other egregious WP:BLP violations (editors are usually living people) are the most likely to show up on an IP talk page, but it is possible that WP:COPYVIO and other revision-deletable material may also show up.

2) The same applies to edits which would qualify for speedy deletion, such as a test edit that inadvertently (WP:AGF) corrupted or removed content from a page. Because no "second eye" is needed to edit (vs. deleting a CSD-tagged page), extreme care should be given when judging whether "speedy delete" really applies.

The point being: An IP editor has at least the same rights to edit other people's content on "his" current or former page as a logged-in editor has to edit the same content on the same page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of non-English language on own User Talk page

Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, or where, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large.

I've noticed many editors talking to each other in languages other than English on User Talk pages, and done it in special circumstances myself. Question: Is this wording above intended to raise User Talk pages to the same standard as article Talk pages in this regard? Has there been a previous discussion to apply the same standard? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone there? Seems this page gets almost no traffic. see also Wikipedia talk:User pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I did get one reply (thankyou SmokeyJoe) at Wikipedia talk:User pages. WP:OWNTALK obviously overlaps. As that comment agrees with my own opinion that editors should not be sanctioned for occasional reasonable use of their own language on their own Talk pages I propose the following distinction between article Talk and own User Talk:

Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, or where, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia article talk pages, and if possible also on ones own User Talk page. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large.

Suggested additions in bold In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe leave message on my Talk page if anyone replies. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I added it, if only one the basis of one comment and no objections. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A minor but necessary correction was added – normally the conversation on someone's talk page is initiated by someone else, and responded to in whatever language it was in. Since this is the English Wikipedia, most editors here have some command of English, but since some are known to be more proficient in another language, that language is used. It would be odd to say that you can reply to others comments in whatever language you want (the expression pardon my French comes to mind), and no one else on your talk page can use anything but English, even if both are very poor at English and very proficient in some particular other language. Apteva (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The words "No matter to whom you address a comment" have no meaning, as in consensus decision making all comments are directed to the group and never "to whom", and on user talk pages, the comments are solely directed "to whom" is the owner of that user talk page. Apteva (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been criticized for my revert. In this instance, I think the criticism is valid. I thought Apteva's changes were the first changes (didn't see In ictu oculi's change). Although In ictu oculi referred to the talk page, Apteva did not, so I thought Apteva was being bold on their own. The current status of the English section is based on the last change by In ictu oculi, which, ironically, has an error in the English (smile). Now that I've thrashed the history out, I think the pre-existing and the newer versions are both convoluted, so I'm going to suggest new simpler language that I think incorporates what you both want. I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong. My intent is to make it simpler. Mainly, the first sentences are affected, and then I wanted to make a few minor changes to the rest of the paragraph. Here's the new section (minor chages bolded):

It is preferable to use English on all talk pages so comments may be comprehensible to the community. If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so but cannot, you should [omitted either] find a third party to translate or [omitted to] contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy.

I'm going to make the changes now and wait for feedback. My apologies for the earlier reversion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Much better, but I think we can improve the last sentence. For example, instead of "if you are requested", how about something as simple as, "If a translation is requested, third parties or Wikipedia:Embassy can help." Apteva (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the simplicity of it, but to connect it to the preceding sentence, how about: "If you cannot translate the comments, third parties or Wikipedia:Embassy can help."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. I hope that everyone will feel free to add "Translation?" wherever needed. Apteva (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say "it depends." If others being able to read the comment in English is important to the project, it should (must?) be in English, or at least be accompanied by a translation or by a summary with an offer to translate. If it has little bearing on the project, such as "congrats on your latest FA, good job" or "Nice photos of [recent local Wiki gathering], hope to see you next year" then I see no harm in using a language other than English. If someone is curious, they can copy-and-paste the text into an online translator and get the gist of it and realize it wasn't important to anyone but the parties involved.

Remember, editors can delete comments from their own talk pages, effectively making them invisible to editors who don't take the time to dig through the page's history. Is having a non-English comment any "worse" from a "keep everything out in the open" perspective? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the suggested changes to the text under discussion: I think they are unnecessary but I will not block consensus to change them. "Preferred" says it all: It is clearly not a "rules violation" to use another language, but you may get pushback or a request for a translation from other editors if you do. If there is any change to the text, replace "preferred" with "strongly preferred" or "very strongly preferred." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There are some situations where you can expect NON-English use and should not chastise users for doing so: In certain project pages that cater to the needs of non-English speakers, in situations where a non-English-speaking person from another-language Wiki is talking to someone here at that person's explicit request (I for one have instructions on the Commons and several non-English Wikis directing people to my English user talk page) and any resulting reply, and where a non- or limited-English speaker has a sense of urgency to make a comment due to a perceived emergency (for example, reporting a multi-language persistent vandal/spammer to WP:ANI) and he doesn't think to use an automatic translation tool. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Other namespaces

The talk page guidelines say

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply."

Recently, a question came up on a noticeboard about whether the talk page guidelines prohibit collapsing of comments that violate the noticeboard guidelines but are not generally prohibited on talk pages. For example, arbcom does not allow comments about content disputes, DRN does not allow comments about user conduct, RSN doesn't allow comments that have nothing to do with reliable sources, the reference desk doesn't allow medical or legal questions, etc. Is collapsing of comments that violate the noticeboard guidelines allowed? If so, should this be made explicit in the policy, or would that just be unneeded instruction creep? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of noticeboard sections where comments that violated the noticeboard guidelines were hatted or collapsed:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Restating the request

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive128#User:Peter Ian Staker reported by Jeannedeba

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jzyehoshua#Abortion Controversy

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive76#"Free Roman Polanski" Petition

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive79#Thor Halvorssen Mendoza

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Comets and the swastika motif

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 25#Garydubh and Republic of Ireland postal addresses

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Where we get personal

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/National-Anarchism#Ideal lede from the PAKI.TV

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Is making the case for critics in a criticism section original research?

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Osho Rajneesh - selective sourcing

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 69#Can the book The Hockey Stick Illusion be used

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive73#Inappropriate claims at MfD

As far as I can tell, most of those collapsed comments would have been allowed on an article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hatting them is fine. It is less direct and less dictatorial than deleting them, and allows participants to get back to business. There are some discussions that do need to be deleted, though. Apteva (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for opinions to see what consensus is, my opinion is that Project discussion pages that are managed by an active "management group" such as ARBCOM or an active WikiProject can have different guidelines than Wikipedia as a whole provided that those who "own/manage" those talk pages have arrived at their own consensus. However, such talk pages are still subject to Wikipedia's policies. When it comes to WP:OFFICE-managed and possibly WP:ARBCOM-managed project talk pages, I'm even willing to allow OFFICE and possibly ARBCOM to overrule Wikipedia policy in talk pages they manage if there is a clear legally-mandated (as per an explicit action by OFFICE's legal dept.) or non- or minimally-controversial reason to do so, as those groups arguably have the right to unilaterally change policy in exceptional circumstances (OFFICE's legal dept. obviously does, beyond that things are not as clear-cut). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Announce: Discussion on regarding {{talk header}} opened at WT:WPAFC

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Use of .7B.7Btalkpageheader.7D.7D.

A bit of background: WP:WikiProject Articles for creation uses a script (the WP:AFCH gadget in your preferences) to add {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} and other talk-page headers to newly-"created" articles. The script also adds {{talkpageheader}}, even though there is almost never an actual discussion yet. If memory serves, this was done at my suggestion in the mistaken (?) belief that this was the right thing to do.

The discussion I opened is to determine if we should keep things the way they are. I am in favor of doing just that. Please go to the WPAFC talk page above to participate in this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

new lines between comments or not?

An editor insists that there should be no spaces between subsequent comments left by editors and goes so far as to remove spaces that other editor intentionally insert. His reasoning is that it affects screen readers. Is this something that we should state outright here and enforce or should we state that this is not something that should be manipulated? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's already here: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#fixformat. Elsewhere, WP:LISTGAP refers to the accessibility issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

adding blank lines between replies currently bloats the HTML, making the pages slower to load. if you want to have the MediaWiki software remove them, then you could always make a request to change the parser. Frietjes (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That is for lists.

by using : you are generating dd/dl tags, which are lists. Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussions are not lists. As a result, that guideline does not apply to discussions. If you want it to apply to discussions, we should explicitly state that here. I'm sorry you do not understand that.

then don't use wiki-markup that generates html list tags? Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical load times are not a consideration for editing. I was told that three years ago and I will stick to that policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

so we should request some mediwiki software parser to condense the redundant markup. seems like a good idea. Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is an ordered list

1. One
2. Two
   1. Two point one
   2. Two point two
3. Three.

This is an unordered list

• One
• Two
  • Two point one
  • Two point two
• Three.

My talk page comments are not lists regardless of how Wikipedia decides to render them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No. You were (almost certainly) told that processing time is not a consideration for editing. WP:LISTGAP specifies (my emphasis) "including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons - including talk page discussions)". The lack of understanding, or refusal to do so, is yours. Hint: which HTML element is used to mark up your comments? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I was told that load times are not a consideration for editors because that was my concern for the page rendering times for the article at the time.

The lack of understand is not mine because I know how Wikipedia renders discussion, but it doesn't matter since discussions themselves are not lists. If that's a problem for browsers or screen readers, then the mark-up should be changed, not our editing behaviour.

As for self-serving additions to guidelines, I will ignore it for now, thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you were mis-informed. And having been given two citations, another reason why list-gaps are harmful, and additional explanation, you're now in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Walter, you could always read through this discussion that covered exactly the same ground. I don't think I can be clearer about the problem than that. Please do a favour to all of our visitors who use a screen reader and don't put blank lines between posts in threaded discussions. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Which screen readers suffer from this problem? I know that there are several on the market and not all treat mark-up the same way.

As for the citations, one was created by an editor with a vested interest in this discussion.

So the question still remains, why is this not formalized here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As I told you above, in the very first reply to your original post, this (as much as anything is) "formalised" here: It's already here: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#fixformat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance is not a policy.

It is unfortunate that we're (ab)using definition-list formatting to indent threads in discussion. Eventually WP:Flow will render this talk page kludge obsolete. In between now and then, I suppose that we have to balance the needs of visually impaired editors with the needs of editors who have trouble seeing whose comments are where in the edit window. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

'Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance' refers specifically to servers, not to the HTML delivered to users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. This question seems to have been lost in the discussion: Which screen readers suffer from this problem? I know that there are multiple readers and the two I have access to don't behave the same way. I'd like to know which readers were reported as having this problem and which don't. Obviously this has been examined thoroughly.

Also, it appears that my other question has not been addressed. Since we are discussing a the talk page guidelines, not lists, should we be including this information here or not? I accept that someone has reported the issue in at least one screen reader so I'm not opposed to formatting to help those with visual impairment, but we should codify it in as many places as is possible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

See my comment at the accessibility guideline talk page]. Graham87 03:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

How many users of screen readers have complained about some talk page discussions being easier to access than others? I would really like to see at least on or two diffs before accepting as a fact that this is a real-life problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Affected readers may not complain. They may just give up. We don't need complaints about each individual issue before we comply with world-wide, industry-standard, ISO recognised accessibility guidelines and use correct and semantically valid HTML. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Affected readers may not complain" doesn't cut it. If even one out of a thousand complained, you would be able to produce multiple examples. I have a better theory. From my web research (I have not verified this personally) starting with JAWS version 5.0 (2005) users could jump from one item in a definition list to another, thus allowing skipping to the next term. My theory is that JAWS doesn't behave the way you say it does.

As for rendering times, at User:Guy Macon/sandbox you will see an experiment I did with adding lines between comments. Adding four linefeeds added 150 bytes to the HTML source. Compare this with the Wikipedia globe (19,670 bytes) the Javascript (7,523 bytes) or the wikimedia button at the bottom of the page (2,426 bytes). --Guy Macon (talk)

Where do I "describe the way JAWS behaves"? As for the file size of images, most users of screen-readers that I have encountered have them turned off, for reasons that should be apparent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Affected readers may not complain" does cut it. You only need to ask Graham and he'll tell you that folks using screen readers learn to put up with the crap that we impose on them. My guess is that's because they know that folks like Guy are just going to find some reason to dismiss their concerns. I don't care if we find a hundred complaints or none; we know there's a problem; we know there are people who will be affected; we know there's an easy solution: just don't put blank lines between indented discussion posts. Why do folks who are already disadvantaged have to jump through hoops just because you're too self-centred to acknowledge the problems you cause to them? --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You claim that "You have already been told by a screen reader user that at least one common screen reader is caused problems by the practice of leaving blank lines between indented talk page comments",[12] but when I asked "How many users of screen readers have complained about some talk page discussions being easier to access than others? I would really like to see at least on or two diffs before accepting as a fact that this is a real-life problem".[13] your only response was the rather insulting "folks using screen readers learn to put up with the crap that we impose on them. My guess is that's because they know that folks like Guy are just going to find some reason to dismiss their concerns."[14] So again I ask, where is the diff to an actual screen reader user who says that this is a problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a fact, not a claim. Graham is an actual screen reader user and he's told you that the problem exists. He links to it about six comments above. There's your diff. So which part of "As far as I can tell, JAWS doesn't read out the definition lists in Wikipedia discussions unless there's another list in the mix (whether it be ordered or unordered). However, NVDA always reads them out. Therefore it's still a good idea to include the talk page exception here." didn't you understand? --RexxS (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Presently, it's only a claim, and only for two readers of a field that contain dozens of products. There are no WP:V or WP:RS to support it. Didn't you understand? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't a claim. He uses the words "as far as I can tell". That's how you describe doing web-based research by reading manuals and help files, which is what I did as well. It isn't how you describe doing original research with your own screen reader. As far as I can tell, all screen readers from 2005 on handle both cases identically. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So then why are we going through this discussion? Is there any proof that screen readers stumble or give excessive formatting information to the listener when a talk page with additional spaces between comments are encountered? I would like to see a single complaint or talk page forum post or anything. I'm completely in favour of assisting the disabled and complying with accessibility guidelines, but it doesn't seem as though this is actually a problem and so it falls to personal preference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The weird thing is that I have the exact same preference, but a different solution. It bugs me when Wikipedia's HTML has extra cruft in it. Yes, I have to purposely view the source to even know that it is there. Yes, I know that the difference in load times is too small for humans to detect. Yes, I realize that in one YouTube session I put more load on the internet than all of Wikipedia's extra-line-related HTML cruft put together. No, I have no evidence of anyone being affected by this. Yet it still bugs me. My preferred solution is different, though; instead of trying to force everyone to not use extra lines (which do make it easier to read the edit window -- paragraphs were invented in the 1800s for a reason), I would like the developers to write better Wikitext-to-HTML routines. Of course I can't ask for that, because as discussed above I have no evidence of anyone being affected by this. :( Sometimes you just have to accept the things that bug you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

But of course, you want to bug lots of users, not editors, because we know full well that there's a problem. Yet you want to claim it doesn't exist unless a reader complains. That's really not how accessibility works. It works by identifying potential problems, checking to see if they are actual, then taking steps to alleviate the effects. Anybody who's designed web sites with regard to WCAG will be familiar with that process. It's not necessary to wait for a litany of complaints to arise before taking preventative action. Here's the potential problem: a blank line between items in indented talk page discussion causes the software to terminate one list and start another, so a screen reader will have a confusing jumble of html to read out. Here's the actual problem: JAWS does that when another type of list is mixed in; NVDA does it always. Here's the solution: either (1) fix the Mediawiki software so it doesn't stop/start a series of definition lists when it encounters a blank line; or (2) failing that, give editors guidance to avoid those blank lines until it is fixed. Of course, your preference is to pretend there's no possibility of a problem because you don't want to see it. And of course, what you can't see, doesn't exist, does it? --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Third time you've been told --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Anybody who's designed web sites with regard to WCAG will be familiar with that process". Do not appeal to WCAG or WCAG 2.0 unless you know that they call this an accessibility issue. I have yet to find any documentation on how they expect lists to be formatted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WCAG is perfectly clear about how to format lists - H48 shows you that a list is a single container (ul, ol, dl) that groups related items. You want to break up related items into multiple lists arbitrarily. You should also be aware of W3C recommendation 10.1: "We discourage authors from using lists purely as a means of indenting text." You will note that Techniques for WCAG 2.0 explains that " Authors should test techniques against the user agents and assistive technologies currently available to their users." - the onus is on authors to test whether the html they produce meets accessibility needs. The is no presumption that WCAG can anticipate every possible issue that causes an accessibility problem. Here you have seen that a potential issue has been identified (a blank line causing the closure of one list and the start of another); a user giving a practical example of the problem for the visually impaired (NVDA reading out all of the closing/opening of the lists); and a guideline to help editors avoid the problem (don't put blank lines between indented talk page discussions}. Yet for reasons unknown, you seem to want to make life harder for disabled visitors by preventing the guideline being made explicit. It's time you swallowed your pride and did the right thing - it's easy for those who are not affected by disability issues to stand in the way of improving Wikipedia for those who are. --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't know the difference between WCAG and WCAG 2.0 and yet you continue to speak as though you know what they're saying.

What they do show is a set of examples. They do not show that a list with extra breaks or spaces is not allowed, and unless I'm mistaken that's what we're discussing. As soon as you learn that rule and can see that there is currently no consensus, we can discuss this. The question is whether or not we add a section to these guidelines to explain how to format talk page discussions and that has not been reached. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

We should follow standard practice and listgap (no spaces between comments). NE Ent 12:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The portion of WP:LISTGAP where the policy was expanded to explicitly apply to talk page comments was added two weeks ago by an editor who is now quoting the rule he wrote as policy[15][16][17][18][19] and now you are calling this two-week-old rule "standard practice" despite the obvious fact that there are a lot of folks who do it either way. I personally don't care one way or the other about whether added lines are allowed, but I very much care about what appears to be an attempt by some editors to take something they believe to be an implied rule -- while other editors don't think any such rule is implied -- and turn it into an explicit policy, all the while bypassing our policy on consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In the examples you give, no-one is referring to this as a policy - a term that has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. LISTGAP has always applied to talk pages, since they use definition lists. Not breaking up lists in this manner is "standard practice" for competent web authors, globally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

See the discussions there; it's clear to most that the guideline doesn't apply to the way we implement threaded discussions. I think it probably should generally apply, but there may also be good reasons for the blank lines, both visually (for users who are visually abled), and in the edit window (to separate subthreads which _should_ be separated). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate subthreads can be started by out-denting. {{Od}} and other templates are available for this purpose, though none is required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) If editors are not clear that LISTGAP doesn't apply to the way we implement threaded discussions, then their misunderstanding needs to be addressed. The way to do that is by clarification, not by denying that a problem exists. Screen readers read html, and don't know that the definition list was created by our clumsy attempts to produce "threaded" discussion. I fully agree that sub-threads should be separated by a blank line, and a screen reader user hearing one list closing and another starting can properly associate that with a new sub-thread - but only if we don't haphazardly scatter blank lines throughout parts of threads that belong together. It is indeed easier in the edit window to identify individual contributions if we leave an extra blank line; but that trades off a slight convenience for editors against a confusing nuisance for visually impaired readers. We're writing this encyclopedia for the benefit of the readers, not the editors. --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidence, please. You are only guessing about "confusing nuisance for visually impaired readers". You have no way of knowing whether screen readers treat the case of added lines and no added lines differently. You are asking us all to accept this as a fact on blind faith. Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Fourth time you've been told --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:LISTGAP is part of the Manual of Style, and is a guideline, not a policy, so let's be accurate. The text before the edit war was:

• "Do not separate list items, including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons) or an unordered list, by leaving blank lines between them, since this causes MediaWiki to end one list and start a new one."

and the disputed text was:

• "Do not separate list items, including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons - including talk page discussions) or an unordered list, by leaving blank lines between them, since this causes MediaWiki to end one list and start a new one."

So, which of the edit-warriors wants to justify their reverts of the second version on the grounds of "a change of policy"? Who is going to state here that the addition of the words "including talk page discussions" is a change of policy and a not a simple clarification? It is indisputable that Mediawiki software uses colons to produce definition lists and it is equally indisputable that every editor involved in this sorry fiasco use colons to indent their comments in talk page discussions. Those words are not a change of anything, but an unarguable statement of fact. It is an inconvenient truth that we have a flawed mechanism to format our talk page discussions; it is equally true that LISTGAP applies to those discussions. What possible rationale can exist for not making that clear to editors to whom LISTGAP applies? --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) RexxS, You have been repeatedly told that some of the other editors think that your "simple clarification" is "clarifying" the policy by adding something that is not there in the first place. If I were to change our policy page on edit warring from "don't edit war" to "don't edit war unless your first name is Guy" that would also be a "simple clarification" -- if everyone agreed that the Guy exception was already implied. If, on the other hand, multiple editors don't believe that the rule already has a Guy exception, then that edit would be a change of policy and a not a simple clarification. Likewise, the addition of the words "including talk page discussions" is only a clarification if that is already the policy, an assertion that I and others disagree with. You can't build your argument that a policy exists upon the assumption that the policy exists. That is the begging-the-question fallacy.

Also, please stop insulting other editors. Comments like "folks like Guy are just going to find some reason to dismiss their concerns", "Walter, you're just looking for any excuse to justify your untenable position" are unacceptable. Your antics are becoming quite tedious. As another user wrote: "You have a real attitude problem. How you've managed to be here this long without sanctions is beyond me".[20] Please stop insulting other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And you have been repeatedly told by at least two other editors that a problem exists, and yet you frivolously decide that you know better. Unlike your analogy, the clarification of the guideline doesn't depend on everyone agreeing on making an exception for you - although that's what you're asking for here - it depends solely on the fact of whether a problem exists. The problem does exist, no matter what denials you make. You dispute that blank lines cause a problem for screen readers; Graham names a screen reader that exhibits the problem (and mentions that another reader shows the problem under some circumstances). Yet you wilfully refuse to accept that there's a problem. If there's any tendentious editing going on here, it's coming from you. Then you have the nerve to accuse me of insulting other editors. Your treatment of editors who are only trying to do what's best for visually impaired readers is what is unacceptable, and I find such a callous attitude towards the disabled disgusting. That's what makes it even worse. Add the guidance: if you're right and I'm wrong, we are creating a minor inconvenience for some editors; if I'm right and you're wrong, we are removing a source of confusion and annoyance from a group of already disadvantaged readers. There's just no comparison. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidence, please. You haven't the slightest clue as to what's best for visually impaired readers. You are just making wild guesses and trying to bully other into accepting them as if they were established facts. Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk)

Fifth time you've been told and you know nothing at all concerning what I know about visual impairment, so quit the ad hominem. Kids like you need to be kept away from topics where you can cause problems for disadvantaged readers. --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) To begin with {{od}} semantically indicates that the comment is a reply to the previous comment, but the indentation is too deep to be reasonable. It does not indicate a subthread, although it almost certainly will cause a break in the list for screen readers. A blank line would be a better choice if it really is a distinct subthread.

As for RexxS's comment, the fact that structured conversations are rendered as lists, does not mean they should be considered lists for the purpose of consensus at WP:LISTGAP. It requires an additional consensus that it should generally be done. I don't doubt that such a consensus can be obtained, but there are likely to be more exceptions than in lists intended to be considered as lists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Returning to an earlier topic, the most ardent ISO recognized accessibility guideline I know of is WCAG 2.0 and it says nothing about this subject at either http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/H48.html or http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/H48 so perhaps we could be enlightened as to which ISO recognized accessibility guidelines we are discussing with a direct link to the guidelines please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Our indented conversations are rendered in html as lists. How can anyone not consider them lists for purposes of accessibility? At present they are lists and screen readers will treat them as lists, no matter how any us want to "consider" them. What sort of consensus are you looking for just to point out to editors that putting blank lines between indented discussions will cause problems for some screen readers? Are you trying to keep it a secret? --RexxS (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Walter, you're just looking for any excuse to justify your untenable position. You have already been told by a screen reader user that at least one common screen reader is caused problems by the practice of leaving blank lines between indented talk page comments. Yet you demand more and more evidence. The WCAG guidelines apply to all websites and, as far as I know, Wikipedia is the only website that inflicts this particularly poor practice on its disadvantaged readers - and the problem is created by the markup we use in wikitext, not the html that WCAG concerns itself with. Why do you think that WCAG would want to produce a guideline just for Wikipedia's wikitext? Particularly when the solution is simple: Don't leave blank lines in the wikitext between indented talk page comments (unless you are starting a new sub-thread of course). --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you RexxS, I am actually looking for answers. That's why I am an editor on Wikipedia. I clearly did not make myself clear. What I'm looking for is the "ISO recognised accessibility guidelines" described here. I would like to see them to confirm this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Walter, I didn't spot that, but I think my comment above remains pertinent. WCAG isn't going to write guidelines specifically to cover our aberrant practices, so I doubt you'll find a URI that condemns what we do. Does the lack of external criticism from WCAG make my argument against the blank lines any less valid? --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not asking for WCAG guidelines specifically, I'm asking for the guidelines that were referenced in that statement. Before we can "comply with world-wide, industry-standard, ISO recognised accessibility guidelines" we have to know which guidelines we're complying with, and possibly more to the point, how breaking a list breaks compliance with them.

To make the point more finely, it may not even be a "world-wide, industry-standard, ISO recognised accessibility guideline" that we're discussing. It may just be an implementation of a single (or multiple) screen reader(s) that apply their own arbitrary rules for displaying lists. So the "comply with world-wide, industry-standard, ISO recognised accessibility guidelines" would be the easiest place to start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have to put the blame on everybody else but yourself? It's not a question of asking multiple screen readers to change their rules to suit the way we misuse definition lists. It's a question of a few editors who want the rest of the world to change just to accommodate their own pet predilection for scattering blank lines between items in wiki-markup. --RexxS (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no blame only a request for this guideline.

I'm not asking anyone to change their rules, I'm asking for proof that it's a problem.

It's also not a few editors. It's many editors.

If it's really a problem, we need to make it part of the these guidelines. If it's not, we need to stop pushing the point. However until we have the actual facts, there's no reason to do anything different.

So while you're doling out advice to other editors, I'll dole out my own to you put-up or shut up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to you what evidence I find of a problem, you'll always want more. Graham has been a screen reader user for many years and he tells you " ... NVDA always reads them out." It's in plain English and gives you the proof there's a problem with at least one common screen reader. Yet you want still more evidence. What's next? Are you going to blame NVDA and tell everybody using it to buy JAWS at $1,000 just so that you can carry on with your peccadilloes? It really is a problem. We do need to make it clearly part of these guidelines, and you need to stop obstructing that very process. --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:"It doesn't really matter to you what evidence I find of a problem, you'll always want more", Try me. So far you have not provided the slightest shred of evidence, so how do you know how I will respond? Re: "Graham has been a screen reader user for many years and he tells you...", Prove it. Give me a diff where he indicated that. Or is that also evidence that you refuse to provide because you somehow know ahead of time what the reaction will be? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Graham posted in this discussion at 03:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC), pointing to his post where he said "As far as I can tell, JAWS doesn't read out the definition lists in Wikipedia discussions unless there's another list in the mix (whether it be ordered or unordered). However, NVDA always reads them out. Therefore it's still a good idea to include the talk page exception here." There's your diff. Did he indicate that or didn't he? This is the second time I've shown you. Aren't you getting sick of playing games of IDIDNTHEARTHAT yet? --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

JAWS Standard: US $895 http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp.

And I have warned you before not to put words into my mouth. You don't know me even though you pretend to.

It does matter what evidence you provide. We have so far reported on two products. I'm curious what sort of market share each has. We have browser statistics and know exactly what percentage of IE6 users come here and we know what problems they will face when they come here and make decisions based on that. Why is it a stretch for us to do the same with screen readers? Why are we going to force everyone to follow a procedure for one person a month, when that one person doesn't even mind? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's what you're saying: "I want it my way and it doesn't matter how much evidence you provide I'll always want more". Exactly as I predicted, you ask for evidence; I provide it; you now want more evidence; more products; more information on market share; and so on. Suffice it to stay that nobody knows what fraction of readers use particular assistive technologies, nor what the absolute numbers are - it's not recorded in server logs as browser type is. I find your argument quite offensive: people can choose to upgrade IE6 to a standards compatible browser, but nobody who is blind has any choice about that. What gives you the right to speak for readers who are affected? - As far as you know it could be thousands of readers a month affected and they may well all mind. Figure out the difference between editors and readers if you can. How about you start providing some evidence of the problem caused by eliminating blank lines in indented talk page discussions? How many complaints have you had? Who is affected by not having them? The answer is that you've not demonstrated any problem with the clarification that should be made beyond your "I don't like it". --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You're just plain wrong. You don't like what we're doing so you use some side issue and can't prove that it's actually a problem. In the old testament, they stoned false prophets. You're either stoned to believe what you're saying or you should be stoned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This all seems pretty heated for such an issue that is so unimportant to the average editor.

Walter, could you please tell me how exactly you'll personally be harmed by formatting comments in whatever way the resident experts on this issue say is supposed to be best—or at least by not reverting them if they clean things up later? And if you're not actually harmed by it, then why are you wasting so much time fighting with them about it? Don't we have something more important to do than to argue over whether they're right on some obscure detail of HTML accessibility rules? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when you say to not revert the resident experts on this issue if they clean things up later, does that include resident expert RexxS "cleaning up" by deleting added lines, resident expert Guy Macon "cleaning up" by adding lines, both, or neither? (No, I am not implying that I plan on doing such a thing. I am just pointing out that the definition of "cleaning up" depends on the answer to the question we are discussing.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question, readability for the able is hampered. Separating the comments with a line break makes it easier to follow the flow. And we're not talking about me alone as I have seen many, many editors do this. That is why I am asking for proof that a problem exists for screen readers and that we add a section to the guidelines to encourage editors to format in the best way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

This does indeed seem pretty heated for such an issue that is so unimportant to the average editor, but it becomes important when Pigsonthewing (AKA "Andy's edits") starts removing lines that other editors purposely put in[21] and edit warring to get his way[22][23][24][25] while quoting as justification a "policy" that he himself added less than two weeks previously.[26]

Now RexxS is an interesting case. If you look past the bluster and personal attacks, he does seem to be attempting to back up his position with at least one bit of data, which is a post by Graham87[27], who uses the JAWS screen reader almost exclusively and uses NVDA as a backup when JAWS crashes[28]. Graham87 reports that JAWS has no problem with added lines in talk page discussions, but NVDA does. I am not sure what version Graham87 is running or how it is configured (more on that later).

My extensive research cannot find any evidence of any NVDA or JAWS version produced later than 2005 or 2006 that does not read definition lists as if they were just text. If you look at This chart, you will see that this is around the time when Wikipedia started becoming popular. During my research, I ran into multiple websites like this, which found that "NVDA'S behaviour here is interesting in that it just reads the [definition list] items without announcing that it's a list or that the terms and definitions have any relation. The content is just read in a linear fashion."

Another gotcha is that the in most screen readers the above behavior can be changed in the configuration. I suspect that somewhere along the llne the "treat definition lists like linear text" went from defaulting to off to defaulting to on.

Finally, I find that thë following linë of argumënt: "Sufficë it to stay that nobody knows what fraction of rëadërs usë particular assistivë tëchnologiës, nor what thë absolutë numbërs arë - it's not rëcordëd in sërvër logs as browsër typë is...What givës you thë right to spëak for rëadërs who arë affëctëd? - As far as you know it could bë thousands of rëadërs a month affëctëd"[29] to bë an intërësting usë of logic. I could, for ëxamplë, claim that somë usërs ëxpëriëncë an ëlëctric shock whënëvër wë usë an "ë" without an umlaut, and thus wë must allways usë umlautëd ë's. If I wërë to thën go on to arguë that nobody knows how many rëadërs gët shockëd, and to point out that as far as you know it could bë thousands of rëadërs a month affëctëd, thë fact that I cannot comë up with a singlë ëxamplë of a rëal përson who is affëctëd is ëxtrëmëly rëlëvant. Thërë is a hugë diffërëncë bëtwëën "wë don't know how many arë affëctëd" and "wë havë zëro ëxamplës of anyonë bëing affëctëd. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that and will makë ëvery ëffort to usë thë diacitical vërsion of "ë" from now on. Man this totally sucks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In conclusion

It seems that there are no actual statistics for this and so we are not going to update the guidelines to recommend the list formatting suggested above. As a result, editors should not be imposing their personal preference on other editors as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're still tilting at windmills, Walter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he just emptied the magazine of his GAU-8 Avenger at this particular windmill, reducing it to splinters. Your attempt to change this Wikipedia guideline has failed. Deal with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Emptying the magazine of a GAU-8 Avenger at windmills would be even more foolish than tilting at them. No attempt to change the guideline has been made, as has been explained to you multiple times. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Keep on topic"

Recently there was an addition to the page encouraging "keep on topic". It was rightly reversed. However, I got to thinking and perhaps we should discuss that addition. It seems logical, as an addition to a thread that does get off-topic is either a)new comments ignore that errant comment. b)someone makes a comment (sometimes not so nice) telling the editor that the comment is off-topic. c) someone turns the new comment and any responses to it into a new thread because it was off-topic and distracting to the current discussion. Such a small courtesy addition would not be instruction creep as it simply codifies existing Wikipedia ettiquette as a preemptive requirement. It wont solve the problem, but it may encourage new editors to not switch topic in the middle of a discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that it would actually improve matters. Instead, it would likely result in certain users claiming that, whereas a given fact or source is distinctly inconvenient to their POV pushing, it is "off topic" and therefore anyone who mentions it is "violating the guidelines". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There are situations where it is natural for discussions to move on to other related topics. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on editing other user's article talk page comments with Flow

Wikipedia:Flow is a planned improvement to the way MediaWiki software handles article talk pages. There is an RfC about how to configure Flow regarding editing other people's article talk page comments. Your input would be welcome. The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Flow#Request for Comment on editing other user's comments with Flow. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkpages that only have banners or are redirects - indicator userscript

See User:Anomie/talklink. I've tested in Vector, and really like it.

Talkpages that are empty or only have templates on them, have orange Talk tab labels. Talkpages that are redirects have green Talk tab labels (changeable in your css). So good and useful. (Someone asked a related question in VPmisc, which reminded me of this script, and I thought it worth mentioning here). –Quiddity (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

How to discuss references on a talk page

What is the best way to refer to sources in talk page discussions? For example, if I want to discuss a famous essay I can't use a <ref> tag since there is no reflist. I could use an ordered list like this (see citation 1) but I'm wondering if there is a better way.

1. Gould, Stephen Jay, & Eldredge, Niles (1977). "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology 3 (2): 115-151. (p.145)

Thanks Andrew³²⁷ 16:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Use {{reflist-talk|close=1}}. The |close=1 ensures the references don't get mixed up with any other reflist on the page. But, if you just want to talk about the citation, then use it without the <ref> tags. --  Gadget850 ^talk 16:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Article improvement

@Guy Macon:, What other ways are you referring to in your edit summary that is not covered in "Discussions on article talk pages should be limited to discussion of relevant reliable sources, the facts and opinions of those sources, and the proper representation of reliable sources (including in matters of WP:Weight and WP:Style)." Seems that covers everything from punctuation to organization to proper summary to identfying sources and citing, etc. I have to run but will check in in several hours. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be an immense list. Besides that, I think that the idea of essentially saying "everything not specifically listed is forbidden from talk pages" is a terrible idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The suggested wording is absurdly restrictive. A huge part of all perfectly valid talk page posts would suddenly be declared inappropriate by this, unless "the proper representation of reliable sources" is interpreted so broadly that it becomes meaningless. Few people would interpret it to include punctuation outside direct quotes, and there are lots of valid topics which have even less to do with "the proper representation of reliable sources". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not cover everything, for the simple reason that WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:STYLE do not cover everything. Just picking one page as an example, It doesn't cover discussions about rewording as discussed at Talk:Lavabit#WikiProject.C2.A0Did_you_know_nomination (all three alternates comply fully with MoS). It doesn't cover requests for information that, if found, might be of use in improving the article, as discussed at Talk:Lavabit#Lavarand.3F, It forbids telling someone to be WP:CIVIL, follow WP:TALKDONTREVERT or to drop the WP:STICK. It forbids asking if something is a copyright or BLP violation. It forbids pointing out that an image is too dark and asking someone to lighten it. You simply cannot pick three Wikipedia policies/guidelines and say that all discussion must involve those three policies/guidelines. Editors need to discuss any policy and any guideline, as long as the discussion is about improving the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Article talk pages are there to discuss how the article might be improved. As long as the discussion meets those very broad conditions it is permissible. Attempting to unilaterally severely restrict those conditions without any discussion is wildly inappropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wildly? Well, our meters of wild are wildly different. But responding to the substantive comments above, it actually does not look that restrictive: style includes punctuation, and proper rewording, copyright and BLP violation, is included in proper representation of sources, questions about the topic, are often referred to the reference desk,. and behavior to the behavior boards, but it's doubtful anyone is going to jump up and down about a minor question or brief aside, no matter what this page says (you got me on the image is too dark but that does not seem like a big topic of discussion, and a little added play in the wording about appearance would cover that). The purpose of guidelines is to actually guide discussion. So, too restrictive, is an odd criticism, although I am sure the guidance can be improved to be less restrictive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Reword: Discussions on article talk pages should focus on policy and guideline compliant presentation of sources, including text and images. "Focus on" is less restrictive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but IMHO it has the same problems, even if softened up a bit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The real question is, what's wrong with "The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article"? That says it all. There is no discussion about how to improve the article that we want to ban. There is no discussion that is not about how to improve the article that we want to encourage (even though we look the other way for minor stuff). Why do we need anything more? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and well said. (But still a thanks for Alanscottwalker for their efforts.) North8000 (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the purpose of TALKNO et al., is to guide editors to what it means in practice to discuss improving an article. We don't assume everyone just knows what to discuss. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As others have said, "The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article" is all that is needed. Talk page abusers will not be dissuaded by fiddling with the wording in this guideline—in fact, the very restrictive proposed wording would only give abusers a wikilawyer-tool to hammer their opposition because good editors often comment in a manner that does not comply with the proposal. Wikipedia does not imprison anyone, so precise definitions of allowable behavior are not required. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What? Imprison? Have you read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines -- the page we are discussing? There is nothing more "restrictive" nor more overly "precise" in the proposed revised wording then is already on this page, which is demonstrably much than that one sentence you repeat, over again. The proposal is merely an elaboration for TALKNO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's try this another way: What do the commenters above or anyone else mean by "discussing how to improve the article"? Surely there should a consensus answer to that question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the whole point of not bureaucracy. Policies and guidelines do not attempt to precisely specify what is permitted and what is prohibited—it's only in real life where someone might receive real sanctions such as imprisonment that laws have to be precise, with the resulting major expense of a legal system where each word is analyzed to determine whether something is allowed or not. Wikipedia generally operates on the we know it if we see it principle, with WP:IAR thrown in to say that even prohibited stuff might be desirable in an unanticipated circumstance. The question of talk page abuse is very tricky, and I fully support anything that might improve the situation. When WP:FLOW hits (possibly in a couple of months), it will be very hard to tell new editors about NOTFORUM—in fact, it might not be possible for non-admins to remove abuse from a talk page (that situation may be documented somewhere now, but when I last looked all I could see was a major effort to avoid making a clear statement). I have seen many article talk pages abused, but I have also seen excellent editors working on an article where they may spend a few hours relaxing by chatting about something only tenuously related to improving the article. It would not be desirable to give wikilawyers an opportunity to hammer good editors (who never actually abuse a talk page). What is needed is not clearer wording, but stronger enforcement—that is a wikiculture thing, and I don't think the libertarians in our midst would ever allow a consensus that encouraged admins to get heavy with NOTFORUM violators without the normal time-sink involving twenty people spending a week debating the obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about not bureaucracy -- no one is proposing elaborating that. (Beside that fact that NOBURO exists along side NOTAFORUM, not instead of). The know it when YOU see it principal is absurd in light of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, the page we are discussing (moreover, you say we need more enforcement, yet the "know it" standard is directly contrary to that -- but we don't actually need more enforcement, just better self-regulation, which guidelines promote). Spending hours on an article talk page relaxing "chatting about something only tenuously related to improving the article" is not something anyone will even complain about -- people are relaxing, they're not going to complain -- if someone does say something, they will be ignored, someone may point out that they are discussing improving the article (albeit tenuously), or they will all just move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC) amendedAlanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

New thing

Under WP:SHOUTING, (redirect to this project page), I think where it says "The user of markup to increase the font size" should have a modification. Consider raising the font size of "increase the font size" to show what it means. 76.226.121.62 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that would really help, and might fall under WP:BEANS (by demonstrating the code to anyone who doesn't already know it). –Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

drug testing (swab)

how long does hydrocodone stay in your system?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.129.251 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing Wikipedia talk page guidelines. You could ask this question at the Reference Desk, although you should be aware that Wikipedia does not offer medical advice. Rivertorch (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

In light of a recent edit and it's reversion, I added hatnotes to two sections and retitled "Good Practices" to "Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration" to clarify that the guidelines are primarily for collaboration pages, while emphasizing that it is still a good idea to apply them to user talk pages when it makes sense to do so. Diff. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood to think carefully about the changes, but one thing that definitely needs fixing is that there is now a heading saying "Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration" followed by a hatnote with "which includes just about all talk pages other than user talk pages". That's not helpful as it suggests that user talk pages are in a completely different category from other talk pages. It's true that banter on a user talk page between good editors is fine, whereas the same would rarely be true on an article talk page, but I think the hatnote suggests too much. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

non-English on user talk pages

I do not think the exhortation to use English on talk pages ought to apply to user talk pages (and I strongly doubt that, when it was written, whoever wrote it was really thinking about user talk pages anyway). I understand why contributions on article talk pages should be in English to the extent possible. But user talk pages are often used to facilitate communication between a small number of editors at a time (often just two). I see no reason they should have to do so in English, if they prefer to do so in another language. --Trovatore (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's best to avoid giving wikilawyers tools they can use to argue that (say) it's ok for two editors to do nothing but chat in their own language. It might be a good discussion with plans to develop articles, or it might be spam, but regardless, it is normally best to use English at en.wiki. Sometimes a couple of editors will temporarily converse in a language of interest to them, and that's fine. However, the general guideline should be that this is an open wiki, and it can't really be open if a group regularly converses in their own language for no apparent reason related to improving the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this ever an actual problem? General rule — if there's no problem, there doesn't need to be a rule; that's how I see it anyway. We should put at least some value on not having rules when we don't actually need them. --Trovatore (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Two points. First, I think we can probably agree that talk page discussions in various spaces other than article space should be in English. This page, for instance, isn't an article talk page; it's a Wikipedia talk page (i.e., in project space). There are also template talk, category talk, portal talk, and so on, and discussions in those places should be in English as well. Secondly, let's consider the word "preferable". While I can't imagine any reason to forbid the use of other languages on user talk pages (and I'd strongly oppose such a restriction), the guideline merely suggests it's preferable that English be used, and I don't see a problem with that. User talk pages are public, just like other talk pages, and in general it's a good thing for as many editors as possible to be able to read and understand them. Rivertorch (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's got to be some wiggle room in any such statement, or we'll have to close the Embassy, which exists for no purpose except receiving non-English communication.

I think that a non-English discussion on user talk pages is normally fine. On other pages, unless the page is dedicated to non-English purposes, then I'm less certain. I wouldn't want ANI to get reports that most people can't make any sense of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We are discussing this edit which inserted "article" with result "It is preferable to use English on all article talk pages". That edit raises too many questions. A guideline saying "preferable" does not present any reason to worry about WP:EMBASSY. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be better to say, "It is preferable to use English in all discussions. However, non-English discussions on user talk pages and at the Embassy are not prohibited." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

At this section, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments, the guidelines say:

"Deletion, which in most browsers is rendered as struck-through text, is coded <del>like this</del> and ends up like this."

Looking through many talk pages, I most often see <s> and </s> for struck-through text. I don't think I've ever see <del> and </del>. Can I make this change to note this? I hesitate to edit WP guidelines. Thanks for your comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course. bold has not been repealed (yet), thank goodness. NE Ent 10:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk about edit

The following is copied from JBW's talk page DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 19:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

[30] You say my edit did not reflect "existing practice."

Due to mine preassuming too many things, some of the following may actually be different than existing practice, but I think other assumptions are uncontested (common sense assumptions)

Which of the following implicit assumptions do not reflect "existing practice?"

• Entire discussions which goes off topic should be brought back on track rather than closed. Only discussions off topic to being with should be closed
• Personal conversation can be copied to the author's talk page
• What makes a comment a rant is it only declares a personal opinion and doesn't attempt swaying the consensus on how to edit neutrally
• There is a much lesser urgency to delete off topic posts
• A consensus needs to be reached before a discussion can be considered off topic
• It is relatively of very minor importance to remove off topic posts

Thanks DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit attempted to make substantial changes, which differed in several ways from established practice. Here are some of the ways in which it did so:

1. You replaced content saying "If a discussion goes off-topic ... the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates" with "If a discussion was off-topic to begin with, the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates." In my experience this is not so. The use of these collapsing templates is common in such places as administrators' noticeboards, but it is nothing like so common in talk pages, and in article talk pages it is quite rare. Completely off-topic sections are often simply ignored, and left in talk pages for years, but when they are dealt with, the commonest method is simply to remove them. I have seen this done many times, far more often than any use of "collapse" templates in talk pages. The original wording referred to what happens when a discussion "goes off-topic", which is a very different matter, since in that case there is some relevant content there, so that simply removing the section would be unhelpful.
2. On the rare occasions when "collapse" templates are used in article talk pages, it is almost always in a long section, where only part of the section's content is collapsed, because most of the discussion is on topic, and only part of it goes off topic: the exact opposite of the change that you made from saying this happens when a discussion "goes off-topic" to saying that it happens when a discussion "was off-topic to begin with".
3. You replaced content referring to what happens to "rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)" with something about "useless rants which do not attempt to influence the consensus on how the article should appear". This was a substantial change. In the original, this passage made it clear that what was being referred to was use of a talk page as a general forum about the subject which the article deals with, as opposed to using it to discuss the editing of the article. Your wording, however, removed the indication that it is relevant whether the talk page content in question is about editing the article or simply about the article's subject, and replaced that criterion with the two highly subjective criteria of whether the content is "useless", and whether it attempts to influence consensus.
4. You say "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic", which is of course trivially true, but you then go on to say "be sure to err on the side of caution. While we should delete offensive posts in a hurry, we should not extend this habit to delete off topic discussion too fast." This reads like a statement that when there is disagreement as to whether content should be included, for some reason the person wishing to include it gets priority. I am not aware of any accepted principle that there is a default preference for inclusion of doubtful content, as though somehow inclusionists get priority.

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Central points: Creating talk pages

The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one should create a talk page in order to place a {{WikiProject}} template on it; or should it be created for certain WikiProjects but not for others (for example WikiProject Disambiguation and/or WikiProject Anthroponymy)? Or perhaps this matter should rather be explain at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide? -- -- -- 03:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing others' comments: Disambiguating or fixing links

The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one may or should fix red links in others' comments when they link to a page that never existed under that name, but which does exist under a different name or different spelling? -- -- -- 03:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Update to recommend self-correction of false comments

I am planning to did update the out-dated section "Own comments" (see: dif836) to directly recommend the widespread practice of self-correcting false comments, as soon as possible, rather than fear touching false or insulting text as if set-in-stone. The updated text would read:^{[revised 17 December]}

"It is best to update your own comments, to quickly correct false information or remove (or redact) wp:NPA personal attacks, before other users must amend that text. Perhaps use strike tag <s>...</s> or note "[redacted]" or a superscript note "^[corrected]" which links to a later subsection for explanation, and then amend the signature timestamp to include the 2nd time of the revised text. However, the corrected wording should fit any reply messages, if other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it. One tactic would be to preface an incorrect phrase with "[formerly believed]" or "incorrectly stated" or strike outdated text by tag <s>...</s> as "this is false" and then insert the corrected alternative text, perhaps noting the effect on subsequent replies already posted. The timestamp can be amended by adding 5 tildes (~):
      • Amended same day: 07:45/15:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC), by erase date & append "/~~~~~"
      • Amended later day: 07:45, 3 May 2013; 02:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC), by append "; ~~~~~"
Even if amended minutes later, add the 2nd time for clarity. Mistakes are common, due to many details for busy users, and messages have been self-corrected daily."

DONE: The tactic of self-revising posted messages is so common that it can be seen daily in various talk-pages or noticeboards. Are there any other major issues which should be noted in that paragraph? -Wikid77 (talk) 19:03, 16 December; revised 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Template closing/resolving talk page sections

(Note: I would have searched to see if this has been discussed, but see not search box.)
I'm in a situation across a series of articles where issues are resolved after much discussion, visits to noticeboards, etc. and the same people bring the same issues up again a month or two later and the cycle starts again. (The articles even have community sanctions it's gotten so ridiculous.)

My question: I'm sure I've seen "Resolved" marks occassionally on talk page sections. Is there any way of making a template for use in such situations to at least agree upon a consensus and highlight it at the top of the section for future reference. It won't stop true new discussions, but might discourage same people from doing/writing same things over and over.

A Template that would say something like Resolution: Remove WP:OR interpretation of primary source quote, (see also WP:RSN discussion), Date . With a template something like {{resolved |outcome= txt| See also:= Noticeboard or other link|date=November 2013}} Maybe it even could become part of community sanctions. Thoughts?? User:Carolmooredc talk 18:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How do you think this would work? Are you saying that future editors can never re-examine the issue? What does that mean? Who would monitor that? Articles are continuously evolving. And what does it have to do with any Sanctions or other WP policy enforcement? Please explain. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I think you read my longer description of this on an article talk page that mentioned that of course new editors or new sources can reopen issues. This question is for people who have experience in talk page guidelines and processes and I assumed would know that. I think contentious articles, whether or not under sanctions, some times need at least some sort of summary if a consensus has been reached. Of course, I've seen ANI and WP:RSN summaries constantly violated, so I don't know why I think this would work. User:Carolmooredc talk

Nearly this entire article has falsities, misrepresentation, and out right distortions. This is NOT a factual history of Copernicus, and this entire article needs much done to correct.. So much, that it should be deleted and redone.

98.156.73.236 (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Heather

98.156.73.236 Huh? This page is to discuss talk page guidelines, not the possible inaccuracies in Copernicus or whatever article it is that needs improvement. Please use that article's talk page to discuss improving that article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with off topic posts

Why has it become common practice to remove (what some consider) offtopic posts from talkpages? The guidelines seems quite clear on this:

• Be welcoming to newcomers: People new to Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. You should politely... suggest a better approach.
• Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic ...the general practice is to hide it by using the templates collapse top and collapse bottom or similar templates...

XOttawahitech (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There are all sorts of off-topic posts, and it's hard to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to them. Some deserve to be nuked on sight (and occasionally RevDelled or even oversighted), others are best collapsed, others can be archived (the guideline also suggests that), and still others might be handled quite effectively with a brief reply and left unhatted. I'd like to think we have a sufficient number of clueful editors to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. In my experience, that's pretty much what happens a lot of the time. If I'm right, I guess the wording might be adjusted to better reflect the actual practice. Incidentally, another option with certain posts is to archive them. (I'm not sure I've ever done this, but the guideline mentions it as a possibility.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. With the caveat that deprecating posts should not be a wikilaywering move to deprecate the other "side" or their arguments in a contentious situation or to prevent concerns from being raised. A good way to say it might be "if in doubt, do not deprecate it, or lean towards the milder method of deprecation)".North8000 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Helpdesk § Deletion_of_talk_page_comments

XOttawahitech (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Extended content
Is this wiki page or Home page of college, it looks like self-advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.195.195 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

BRD and refusal to discuss

Two things this guideline needs to do is:

• Under Good Practices Mention and link to WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• Under Unacceptable Behavior mention refusal to answer specific question or concern, including through going off on procedural or other tangents, per this at Tendentious editing page. Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• ...keeping the proper balance so that someone who keeps re-asking a question that has been answered or who receives an answer but refuses to accept it will have difficulty using this guideline as a club. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• I've had those sinking-feeling discussions where my questions weren't answered except by walls of unrelated text. I agree with GM about balance. As I tried to compose an entry, I was struck that ignoring or refusing aren't in themselves wrong, just when accompanied by blathering on about something else. We need a shorter phrase to describe the problem, but longer than just "tendentious". --Lexein (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

We are to have a guideline requiring editors to answer questions addressed to them???? Really? I have just checked, and this was not posted on the first of April. So we are not to be allowed to decide what is worth answering and what isn't? Anyone who wants to can oblige me to write about something that I have no wish to write about? OK, but if we do, then let's rename the page from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to Wikipedia:Trolls' charter. Alternatively, we could just accept the fact that, in a voluntary project, where nobody is obliged to do anything, sometimes someone will choose not to answer a question that we would like them to answer. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Having had some absurd questions thrown at me lately, I think we can safely dispense with the "answering questions" section. But mentioning the people should look at BRD seems like an obvious addition. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings and closings

Wasn't there something here about not adding letter greetings like "Hello" and letter closings like "Sincerely yours," "Warm regards," and the like? I could have sworn there was. In WP discussions, these are distracting and a waste of space, and, worse, sarcastic, when following a particularly aggressive criticism during discussion, even if not intended to be sarcastic. Civility and good etiquette should be baked into how we discuss, not feigned in decorative text. Article talk pages aren't letter exchanges, so greetings and closings should be deprecated, IMHO. "Be concise" sort of covers it, but not explicitly enough, I think. "Sign your posts" and WP:SIG describes explicitly how to do it, but don't explicitly address greetings and closings. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Bump? --Lexein (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Bump? --Lexein (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Enough bumping. Make your edit(s) -- if folks don't like 'em they'll revert them. NE Ent 21:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Added, see WP:Talk page guidelines#greetings. --Lexein (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Greeting and Felicitations! Good call. Without the tone of voice and facial expressions that accompany face-to-face communication, what seems like politeness to the sender can easily come across as sarcasm or mocking to the reader. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for reading this comment!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

+1 NE Ent 10:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. When I get a talk page message that starts with "hello, James", I feel that I am dealing with someone who thinks of me as a person, rather than just an anonymous presence. I see absolutely no reason why anyone should take it amiss. Even if some people for some reason or other don't like such greetings, they don't have to use them. Arguments such as that an apparently friendly greeting may seem unfriendly "when following a particularly aggressive criticism" are completely irrelevant, because that is an argument about talk page posts that involve "particularly aggressive criticism", and there is no reason why they should affect how one acts when one is not making such "aggressive criticism". That is about like saying "never look at anyone , because if you were holding a gun in your hand, looking at someone might suggest that you were going to shoot them." JamesBWatson (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to presume that you don't want named greetings and closings on every comment on every kind of Talk page. Anyways, please note that the main target here is collaboration discussions on Talk pages other than User talk pages, as described in the section lead paragraph WP:TPYES. But let's take two canonical bad news comments as examples:

on a User talk page:

Greetings,

You really need to read WP:RS#News organizations again - tabloids don't count. You're being seriously disruptive over at SomeRandomArticle, and are about to be taken to ANI. Wikipedia is not WP:THERAPY.

Warmest regards,

-- DisengenuousUser (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There are no warm regards there - it's a bald lie. Decorative text doesn't make the statements any more civil or palatable. It just makes them take up glaringly more space on the page, with the cognitively dissonant pretense of politeness.

on an Article talk page:

Hello,

Who keeps deleting my book sources? What in holy hell?

Best wishes,

-- AnnoyedWellMeaningUser (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a user torn between anger at loss of work, and trying to be civil about it. We're tough enough to take it without the greeting or the closing. I wouldn't chide the user for it, though, just respond sans the decoration.

That said, I don't mind the occasional greeting on my User talk page with my name in it, followed by a truly civil, polite, or even (gasp) courteous comment. It's pleasant in very small doses. If used more than that, I can't see it helping in Article talk, and it's not the practice at 99.99% of Wikipedia discussions AFAICT. So in my opinion, it's reasonable to formalize that it's not needed. --Lexein (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

JamesB's point is well taken; I've moved the section to the "article talk" section and trimmed it a bit; the second half struck me as a bit preachy, and I think it's better to focus on what to do, not what not to do. NE Ent 02:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I think it is related to "be concise." --Lexein (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Central points: Creating talk pages

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Creating talk pages in order to place WikiProject template

The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one should create a talk page in order to place a {{WikiProject}} template on it; or should it be created for certain WikiProjects but not for others (for example WikiProject Disambiguation and/or WikiProject Anthroponymy)? Or perhaps this matter should rather be explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide? -- -- -- 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing others' comments: Disambiguating or fixing links

The guidelines do not sufficiently explain whether or not one may or should fix red links in others' comments when they link to a page that never existed under that name, but which does exist under a different name or different spelling? -- -- -- 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If a) it's an obvious typo and b) I have no reason to suspect that particular editor would object, e.g. based on past interaction, I just fix em per not a bureaucracy. NE Ent 10:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think we should add this to the guidelines? -- -- -- 22:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No. It takes experience to know when it might be desirable to fix something in a previous post, and when you might just be interfering. There is no way to sum it up in a guideline, so the simple rule of "don't" is best. In general, do not look for comments to fix. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur, it's "covered" under the WP:NOTBURO pillar and best left to folks who have been around awhile. NE Ent 01:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for responding (and so quickly!). -- -- -- 01:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with user on theier own talk page?

Are we ok with edits like this or this? What can one do about it? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

• Stop edit warring on someone else's talk page, like it's your own personal battlefield? - SchroCat (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• When people request you stop posting, then stop posting,before you are seem as a WP:dick. - SchroCat (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• When someone asks you not to post on your talk page, you try to keep just enough intelligence to respect t hat request. - SchroCat (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The above is a misleading(He doesn't say he told me to stop posting on his talk page till AFTER he had on multiple times changed edits of mine to his talk page) personal attack by an editor who refused DRN, constantly refactors comments to misrepresent what another has written, and has constantly resorted to name calling. Perhaps I take him to ANI because that may be the only way this behavior will end....William 19:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

-:::*Remember to not WP:NTTR, if you've got any common sense. - SchroCat (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Fix it (note: If anyone has replied, mark your "fix" in a way that makes it clear that the fix was done AFTER some or all replies). But if it gets un-fixed (as in this case)...
• Explain to the editor that the changes he is making are materially misrepresenting you and could damage your reputation unfairly, and ask him politely to restore the text as you meant it to be. If that doesn't work...
• If the item has not been replied to, delete it. But if it gets undeleted....
• Make a self-reply correcting the material with diff(s) to relevant edits by you proving your original intent. If that gets reverted or changed...
• Minimize future interactions with this person if possible. If the existing content of the page is still materially misrepresenting you, consider...
• Reporting the person to an administrator or to an appropriate community dispute-resolution forum, on the grounds that the edits are materially misrepresenting you and that 1-1 dispute resolution has failed.
• In the case of very inflammatory material, such as if an edit made you sound like you endorsed rape (not the case here as far as I can tell), then an immediate trip to an administrator's noticeboard or to an administrator-monitored IRC forum might be necessary.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If you read WP:NTTR and WP:TTR, you will find that the arguments at WP:TTR are far more persuasive. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)