Wikipedia talk:Etiquette

---

• Project page renamed from Wikipedia:Wikiquette -St|eve 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Principles: Register an account... but if you don't, don't make a signature that looks as if you had

I've added that to this page for good reason. You'd be amazed that it needs writing, and it is specifically based on the actions of a single, and AFAICS unique user. There is an RFC which is actually about other aspects of his behaviour. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 - he represents himself as ^Talk The Invisible Anon. I started the RFC, but several users including admins have made forceful advice that his signature habit is an unhelpful one. Accordingly, I commend this specific mention in Etiquette, lest someone else think it is a precedent and good idea. Midgley 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't need to be said, but that such a thing shouldn't be done and if someone is doing it then it must be said. Signing one's name like that is misrepresentation, since whether someone is an IP address–user or not has important implications both technically and for the social structure of Wikipedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh? If some troll abuses it once, fine, ban the troll and that's the end of it. In the mean time, anonymous editing on wikipeda is one of the foundation principles, and it's one of out key features. Don't let a couple of trolls ruin things for the entire freaking rest of the planet!

Hmmm, that and you can't expect anons to know wikipedia etiquette. They typically read it later, after we've given them a warm welcome. :-)

Finally, many anons are great people who have much to contribute, so be nice to them!

Kim Bruning 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (former anon editor who joined after people were nice to me :-) )

I strongly disagree (but I'm admittedly biased). A signature is intended to uniquely identify a user, not as a "badge of status" or a "technical measure". Many users have signatures that are not equivalent to their account name; changes have been forced only where disruption and impersonation were involved. As far as I can tell, "The Invisible Anon" linked his signature to his correct user/talk page (which your example above does *not* correctly indicate). Finally, even if you think there is a real justification for this guideline, it should be included at WP:SIG, not here. – 74  00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised this went unchallenged for so long. It's totally wrong. First of all, I have no reason to believe it's an "etiquette" issue. Second, if it's wrong for anons, it's wrong for registered users too. I've seen plenty of sigs that use names (or symbols, etc.) different from what the username is. There's absolutely no reason to act prejudicially toward anons on this one, and offhand I don't see a reason to blanket disallow it for registered users either.--Father Goose (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Means of addressing violations of WP:EQ

WP:EQ states that a user should (1) keep biases in check and (2) act to improve wikipedia articles.

If these two guidelines are violated, what is the recourse? For instance, if an editor goes systematically through articles putting fact tags on pro-homosexual statements, or deletes them, but never contributes to articles, and appears to never make good-faith attempts to find sources to support and improve articles, that author is clearly failing to keep biases in check, and is motivated more by an agenda than an interest to improve articles. Some may argue that this strategy, in the end, improves articles. Maybe that's true, but it doesn't deny the fact that the WP:EQ principles are being violated.

In these cases, what is the proper recourse? Should individual edits, which are in themselves reasonable but on the whole clearly violations, be reverted? That seems likely to cause an edit war. Otherwise, what is the procedure? --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits by 71.155.232.61

On 1 January 2009 a string of 8 edits were made by an anonymous editor using IP address 71.155.232.61. The worst of these edits were false ("The system is based on the presumption that a popular position is a correct position") and the least bad were simply not on the topic of etiquette ("Write succinctly. Omit needless words.") Some of these edits have already been reverted, the rest I am reverting. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful merger proposals

It is a nuisance that Wikipedia readers propose mergers of articles or lemmata, who definitively do not have the lingual capability of a native speaker in the repective language nor of any expertise in the topic. Who on Earth has set the idea that an encyclopedic database will grow on mergers? Could all those who like to find options for mergers think about the possibility that there are other views but one of two? Anyone who proposes mergers should be willing to contribute to additional stuff, but not just to save server capacity. Any objections that I might understand?Wireless friend (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a point of etiquette: "Avoid indirect criticism"

I propose adding a point of etiquette to this guideline as a subsection of "Wikipedia etiquette", probably at the bottom of that section. The text would look something like this:

Avoid indirect criticism

Avoid use of unexplained scare quotes and other means of implying criticism or making indirect criticism when you are writing in edit comments and talk pages. Out of respect for other editors, criticism of another's edit, of phrasing and choice of terminology, or any criticism of or critical response to talk page commentary and participation ought to be made clearly, directly, and explicitly in a manner that may be easily understood and replied to.

Hence insinuation, double entendre, and excessive or unwarranted subtlety of writing should be avoided when expressing criticism - particularly negative criticism. This point of etiquette also helps the editor receiving criticism to correctly understand you and respond to your concerns and may particularly aid editors for whom English is a second language or who experience difficulty understanding written English.

When this style of communication is necessary in the interest of being concise or illustrative it is best to explain the intended meaning of your use of scare quotes or other indirection immediately afterward.

Of course criticism communicated in any manner and concerning any subject must be civil, should assume good faith as described in the relevant guideline, should not constitute biting of newcomers, and should comply with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If directed generally towards an editor's behavior or other aspects of talk page commentary, criticism must not constitute a personal attack as described in the WP:NPA policy. See also the essay "Avoid personal remarks" for a viewpoint on the latter form of criticism.

I don't think this point of etiquette is formally stated elsewhere on WP but a review of project namespace and article talk mention of the term "scare quotes" appears to indicate that the above notion already has consensus behind it. Also IMO this principle is genuinely good etiquette advice and very much in the spirit of the Wikipedia community's ethos. But I wanted to propose this here before attempting to add it to the article, in case my impression of existing consensus is wrong or I'm wording it poorly or missing a significant aspect of it - so please let fly with comments and (explicit) criticisms!

To be clear, I specifically want to add this to the etiquette guideline because I really think it should merely be etiquette advice like the other things mentioned in this page: my intention is not to formally prohibit or proscribe this form of communication, rather to indicate that communicating in this way is not entirely polite or considerate and hence ought to be avoided in favor of explicit criticism or ought to be accompanied by explicit criticism. (I would also hope that when editors genuinely trying to follow WP:ETIQ stop to consider how to rephrase their indirect criticism into explicit criticism they might decide to just not be critical at all and achieve goals in other ways, in situations where that's appropriate - but I think that kind of behavior must simply be encouraged because it can't be enforced in any practical way.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Having heard no opposition here for a few days I'm going to be bold and add the section, but of course feel free to make rewrites or make any other changes to improve it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove off-topic material

It is a fairly common mistake among people new to editing Wikipedia to use talk pages for general requests for information on the subject of an article or project page, rather than for discussing proposed changes to the article or project page. In the case of the Etiquette page at least the following sections are general requests for information (not always even on the subject of Etiquette):

• Is it a policy violation to make accusations of sockpuppetry on article talk pages?
• Getting my wikiquette questions answered
• Question about red links
• Question
• Unhelpful merger proposals

Also it is not entirely clear to me that the following sections are proposing edits to the project page:

• Why does this policy protect the extreme right? (And particularly smart trolls)
• I think.

Furthermore, all but one of these sections has been dormant for over a year, most for several years. My own preference in such a case would be to delete the sections, as being out of place and unneeded, but I know that there are many Wikipedia editors who think that past discussions should not be completely deleted, no matter how inappropriate they may be, so I would settle for archiving them. Any opinions? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I generally feel it's only necessary to delete posts that have no plausible connection to the subject (i.e., the guideline and/or the general subject of etiquette). Tell you what: I'll just archive everything from before 2009, except for the "Register an account" thread, since it is active.--Father Goose (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. Howzat?--Father Goose (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Personally I feel that leaving in posts that shouldn't really be there sets a wrong example to people new to Wikipedia, and my own preference would, as I said above, be to delete them. However, archiving them deals with that problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if they're totally off-topic, they can be nuked. But if there's any indication whatsoever that the poster is making a comment in response to something on the article page or project page, it's best to leave it in place. IMO.--Father Goose (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP

While meditating on the true difference of processing between WP:BLP and the others articles and why the others politics are applied more striclty in those cases. It became obvious for me that the true root of this was here in WP:ETIQ. While it's also obvious why this page is axed toward others wikipedians, there is no raisonnable reason why we should act disrespectfully toward anybody. I'm wondering if we could find a way to tell it on that page, just briefly. --Iluvalar (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

why are we using the {{cquote}} template for the motto?

Why do "civility, maturity, responsibility" appear in {{cquote}}s at the top of the page? The quotation marks make it sound like we're quoting something. But the words maturity and responsibility (or variations thereof) don't even appear anywhere else on the page. And it's not a quotation of anything.

Can't we render it ... like ... any other way? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 02:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. The quotes seem to be just a way of emphasising the words, which is not a good use of quotes. There are various other ways that could be used for the purpose if there should be consensus in favour of doing so (e.g. a box, bigger font,...). However, I don't see any good reason of emphasising them; they are quite prominent enough at the top of the page anyway. In the meanwhile the quotes have now been removed. Actually I personally don't see the need for the motto at the top of the page at all. It was introduced in June 2008 without discussion by a user who has since left Wikipedia, and so can't be asked about his reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ok

I don't dare edit a guideline page so I'm posting here.... the link to Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention should probably not be linked to from WP:Etiquette considering the notice on top of Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention. Right? :)

Reliefappearance (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. ("The notice on top of Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention" is the statement that the page is now inactive, and retained only for historical reference.) I have now removed the link. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Any reason to do so?

Is there even any reason not to do so? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!), unless you have some excellent reasons not to do so".

LOL, I think the statement is just to add humor to this page, why can't we have a not strictly encyclopaedic page for once eh? but I see your point. ;) Microsofkid (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Shouldn't mention of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts be up top for people who run into this page when having problems they might want to get advice on? THanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Link now added. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Everyone

If this is not appropriate, then you have permission to remove it! I can't post a thanks on everyone's user page, but thank you to anyone who contributed to the Wikipedia: articles! Microsofkid (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty appropriate to me! Good to see a bit of Wikilove every now and again. :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduce WP:ANSWERQ or equivalent

I would say that I am a middling-experience editor with approaching a 1000 edits. For my first few years I worked on non-contentious articles where "gentlemanly conduct" was all that was needed to work on articles. Then I had the misfortune to get involved in a couple of controversial articles. This topic does not directly relate to these, but to a issue that I can across in my editing on them. The more experienced editors would often cite WP:RS, WP:V, etc. as a brief explanation to overwrite or undo an edit, and also resort to such shorthand in attempts to discuss the issues. So my response here was to read and understand all of the frequently cited policies and guidelines, so that I could respond using an informed and evidence based argument.

Now I have a different problem (I have seen dialogue where other editors experienced this also). My knowledge of policies and procedures is fresh whilst some the editors sometimes work on stale and wrong recollections. When I point out that their edit fails WP:V because the relevant section says X, or that WP:MOS doesn't support their claimed position what it actually says is Y, they often dismiss the question, decline to respond or simply reiterate their first response. This sort of attitude makes it impossible to have a negotiated discussion towards consensus. Yet the very first section of WP:ETIQ includes the statements

• Do not ignore questions.
• If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
• Concede a point when you have no response to it, ...

So could we add another shortcut WP:ANSWERQ or something similar so that we can easily remind editors that this conduct is a basic requirement of Wikipedia ettiquete. -- TerryE (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Craig Cobb complaint

Craig Cobb Wikipedia Biography-Craig Cobb's factual additions submitted BY CRAIG COBB summarily deleted entirety by NawlinWiki. I submit that I know more about my own life than either NawlinWiki or the author of the original page, whether he/she was or was not NawlinWiki and others.

Further, Wikipedia certainly does allow personages to edit their own pages. Yet every single fact I submitted was stripped out by editor NawlinWiki with not even a single query to me.

I respectfully request that my fair editing of the page, which left almost every single negative or critical detail in (excepting anti-Semitic; I am anti-Jewish) , which entry I corrected in only one of its several places.

At the very least, some portions of my edit should be retained, and a "this page is in dispute" entry be logged on top. It is unfair to use the original with no additional corrected factual info from myself. Some of the "facts" were incorrect--years etc.

Thanks to all the other fairer editors for your joint considerations. I did also upload a photo of myself, but only as a .jpg Wikipedia Commons link. Having a bit of tech trouble fitting it on the right. I would be glad to give you all a copy of the edited page which NawlinWiki deleted without polite (or any) query to me.

Craigcobbcreativitypractitioner (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (added User / DTS and new section break -- TerryE (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Signing and dating posts

Is that really wikiquette? Kayau Voting IS evil 13:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think so. If you don't sign your posts you force other people (the ones who even realize your comment isn't part of someone else's) to go rummaging through the page history to figure out who said it. But if someone didn't do it I can't think of any really good reason to try to make them do it (insofar as anyone can even be made to do anything on Wikipedia) so it seems like it's a matter of etiquette. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ego massages

The following seems like a dubious responsibility to place on editors: talk pages are said to be "a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos." I'm inclined to say that "Wikipedia is not therapy". Talk pages may be a good place to offer encouragement and tips to newcomers whose still-shaky skills have been displayed in the article space, but the encyclopedia is surely better off if we leave our egos at the log-in door. Ego only gets in the way of WP:NPOV and examining the scholarship dispassionately. Seems odd to hallow damaged egos with a guideline saying they must be nurtured like fragile chicks. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not seem to me that this is a responsibility placed on editors, it's rather saying that if someone is being an obstinate idiot the talk page is the place to kiss their ass with etiquette and validation (if you want to deal with their obstinacy in that way.) Note that the next bullet point says "if your ego is easily damaged, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you." --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Evidently, there is a proposed new process board for WP:Etiquette or WP:AGF issues, which I stumbled upon by following links at this guideline this morning. I don't see that this has been widely publicized and felt it might be of interest to those who monitor this guidelines. Please see Wikipedia:Antiquette. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've marked it as failed, as there appears to be no chance of this being approved (no support, strong opposition, bemusement at the reason for this). Fences&Windows 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Highest airport in the world

San Rafael is still the highest airport in the world: How some one can remove it and replace it with an airport that is 60 meters lower in elevation is not reasonable. The standards are not the highest most commercial, most passenger, it is simply the highest airport in the world. San Rafael has been a certified public use airport since 1981 and is service each week by ATSA a Peruvian airline. Yes, a new airport when, finished will be higher, but presently San Rafael is the highest airport in the world and the Bangda airport is not. DlwargiDlwargi (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... Is this somehow relevant to the Etiquette page? Gekkey Mathews (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Undelete page

Rajeshsng (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Please undelete page of Adya Prasad Pandey as he is one of senior Economists in India as i have seen many other Indian Economists page in the wikipedia which is not having much backed references but are there in site As Adya Prasad Pandey is Recently appointed As an Expert Member by University Grant Commission which is Premiere body for Higher Education in India working Under Governement of India As the page is might be deleted due to one of my friend as he may be done some mistakes so in the case undelete it so that i can handle the situation . I have read your page as also appreciate your work on wikipedia so thinking that you help in this case if you are having sugession you are most welcome Thank you Rajesh

Poorly written

I take pride in violating this guideline by calling some of it not only poorly written, but outright nonsense. Giving "poorly written" as example of verboten phrase is wholly unproductive for direct communication. Do you want editors to use euphemisms instead? Just have a shower of real-world incivility at ANI [1], which still goes completely unsanctioned, and especially stop copying stuff from here to WP:NPA. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact this whole guideline is a giant collection of "recipes" without any discernible logic in their organization. I guess it's just one more outlet for the civility legislators that Wikipedia seems to have too many of. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty bad. Starting looking for "floss your teeth." Shall we take a crack at trimming it down into something that moves away from WP:TLDR.Gerardw (talk)

Or maybe "avoid TLDR" as last entry in the list would be epic justice? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The following to start with could be trimmed, made clearer, its rather wordy, it is fine to have as a reminder. Might it be simpler to just say "Remember some comments may contain irony"? or at least something a bit shorter than this:

"Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written—Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean."DMSBel (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I completely disagree with the original poster – I strongly believe that using the word "poor" to describe another Wikipedian's writing is a great example of very bad etiquette. Now, I'm all in favour of another editor altering something that I've written, or offering ways in which it could be improved – that is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, after all. And I'm not proposing using "euphemisms", but there are dozens of suggestions that could be made that are away from the "This sucks" end of the criticism spectrum. "This needs improvement" or "I found this part confusing" or "This conflicts with the manual of style" or "Some of the spelling is incorrect" or "More sources are needed" or "The grammar in this section needs changing" are some of the many, many things that could be used that are considerably less likely to make another editor defensive, or even decide to leave Wikipedia altogether. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)