Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Should we swear?

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

Inserting replies in the middle of a comment

I recall that there used to be an admonition not to insert replies into the middle of a comment by another editor.

:Point 1 by user:A

::Reply 1 by user:B, sig

:Point 2 by user:A

::Reply 2 by user:B, sig

:Point 3 by user:A, sig

In this example, user:B's signature is repeated throughout the commentary, but user:A's appears only at the end. The rationale for prohibiting was that it becomes muddled. However I don't see anything about it in this guidelines anymore, nor can I find any discussion in the archives. Was it moved or deleted, or am I misremembering?   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that example is muddled, but I don't think inserts are prohibited, when the two priorities are, we are building an encyclopedia, and "don't change the meaning".  User B, or for that matter other editors, can do more by identifying where the inserts begin and end, such as with:

:Point 1 by user:A

::[insert begins here]

::Reply 1 by user:B, sig

::[insert ends here]

:Point 2 by user:A

::[insert begins here]

::Reply 2 by user:B, sig

::[insert ends here]

:Point 3 by user:A, sig

Also, User B could use Template:TopicBranch to minimize the insertion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also make it more clear who is speaking in any particular section of such a passage, if one were to copy and paste user:A's signature at the end of each point, prior to the next insert?74.72.23.106 (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not do that. Wikipedia is not intended to host forum-like discussions where people keep replying to each other indefinitely. It is very rare to need to insert a comment, and the practice irritates the vast majority of editors who later try to make sense of what happened. Just add a comment at the bottom saying something like "Re 'xyz' stated above, my opinion is ...". Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

RFC Removal

Should the existing

• Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

be changed to the proposed

• Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand may be removed.

Gerardw (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The controversy that is likely to occur over the removal of merely disruptive comments is likely to be more disruptive to the conversation and consensus building then the disruptive post was in the first place. What one editor sees as a disruptive distraction from the main point, other editors may see as an important issue to consider. Only if the comments are extremely disruptive, have passed beyond AGF, AND the removing editor/admin is uninvolved should they be removed, certainly not as a routine measure. Monty₈₄₅ 15:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The proposed wording is not about "merely disruptive" posts, it's about disruptive posts "which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand", i.e. are off-topic. Removing such posts is done fairly often and doesn't seem like it should be that controversial. Kaldari (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per my own comments and those of others I have quoted in the section above. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly per Monty. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Taking the example of the joke at the pregnancy talk page, to the extent that it did contribute to the discussion, the point (eye of the beholder) could easily have been re-expressed in a way unlikely to rub so many people the wrong way. I think this is the way to go -- rather than insisting that a crude joke has to stand, invite the editor to express their point (if there is one) in a different way. (Having said that, if two users want to exchange jokes on their user talk pages, it should be a matter between them.) --JN466 16:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support as per the letters in the Economist from January - civility is important, and removing uncivil posts forces the users to make them to either rewrite their posts in a civil fashion or to be unable to make their point. While if the rule is enforced selectively and inconsistently it can be counterproductive if its organised sensibly and enforced it should be workable. People aren't generally uncivil to their bosses/customers so they shouldn't be uncivil on Wikipedia.
• While uncivilly has a borderline, most constructive editors take comments on lack of civility well and will refactor their comments appropriately and/or apologise for incivility. Additionally it should generally be possible to stay well within the borderline. If you have to insult someone because their argument is so poor it must be obvious to the discussion closer right? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Default should err on the side of letting things alone. Those who have enough clue to remove comments generally don't need an open ended invitation. Quite the opposite actually. See my comment above as quoted by Have morser will travel--Tznkai (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• I think the idea is to discourage such removals in general -- in cases where it's unambiguously warranted, people will tend to fix the problem no matter what this page says, and in any other case you're liable to cause even more disruption with an argument over whether or not the removal was appropriate. If a conversation is besieged by off-topic comments, or someone is a persistent problem, we have other ways of dealing with that. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support, conditional This seems like it has the best of intentions, however: what qualifies as "clearly does not contribute to the discussion"? This could be exploited in a number of ways, especially by those who maybe have a link to the topic/discussion at hand. Maybe some kind of addition that gives a clear-cut definition of "does not contribute" would be good. Otherwise, it is slightly tiring to be reading discussion archives and to see comments that don't relate in the slightest.  A p3rson ‽ 00:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Monty845 makes a good argument- deletions of potentially disruptive posts are frequently disruptive themselves, especially since they are almost always done by active participants in the discussion. The Wikipedia community already has enough difficulty in deciding what qualifies as a personal attack. "Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand" is so broad it could cover a large part of what is now allowable. There was a recent kerfuffle over a short block of an established user for questioning the gender of an editor. If this proposal passes, I expect there would be more disputes and more complaints over deletions, leading to a the opposite of what the proposal seeks to achieve.   Will Beback  talk  16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We want to avoid the heavy-handed removal of that which is potentially valuable. We can survive the inane and off-topic, but we don't want to risk losing the potentially valuable. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• If you want another example why this change is bad: [2] [3] leading to [4]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, more often than not deletions like these cause far more disruption and ill will than they serve. Obvious trolling and random text gibberish should be deleted. In most circumstances, however, the comments of an editor long engaged in a discussion should not be deleted unless they are outing another editor or doing something serious.AerobicFox (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is filled with a large number of individuals that seem to think that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA do not apply to them. Worse, they have hordes of enablers who, at best, look the other way. At worst, they stand as roadblocks to any attempt to force said individual to adhere to these rules, going as far as unblocking them should someone finally get fed up with their crap. There is something that should be done about this, obviously... but this isn't it. This will only lead to more disputes as we allow anyone the ability to refactor or remove talk page edits over civility, broadly construed. I have no interest in seeing dozens of ANI reports by X who keeps getting his talk page posts edited away by Y because Y doesn't like X. Trusilver 11:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose because it's better to leave a discussion in place, and find other methods of dealing with disruption, rather than make it difficult for an outside observer, such as an admin, to see what's going on. Disruptive posts are not in the nature of shit in the middle of the floor, but rather in the nature of rubbing shit on one's own face and should be left for everyone to see. B^e——C_ritical 18:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- mostly because of the vague weasel wording "may be considered". Considered by whom? What if the "offending" remark has multiple possible interpretations and it's "considered" disruptive by someone while being meant that way by the author? Nope. No thanks. Last thing we need around here is self-appointed civility cops auditing people's comments and ruling on who can say what, particularly when the proposed guideline is too loosely worded to be useful. Reyk _YO! 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mention WP:CRD?

Should this guideline mention available remedies such as WP:CRD for material that makes it into edit history summaries via the headings? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Experience is required to gauge when revision deletion is warranted, and plenty of experienced editors will see most nonsense (particularly if it is raised somewhere like WP:WQA). A heading like "User:Example is an ignorant jerk who wouldn't know a reliable source if it bit him" is obvious junk and should be immediately deleted. However, this guideline should not encourage revision deletion for such nonsense (revision deletion is for outing and perhaps stuff like "User:Example abuses children"). Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

how to get the prove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsenpey (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Polling policies

We need to modify this guideline in such a way that an editor can start a poll with a defined polling process (such as to gauge the support for different versions of the lead paragraph) and then have authority to maintain those rules in a given section of the talk page. For example, such polls for support are more managable and resolve more quickly when oppose votes are disallowed. However, there is always some (l)user who refuses to abide by the rules clearly stated in advance. It should be permissible to remove those !votes from the poll, and there should be a canned warning which could be put on the violator's talk page warning that ignoring the pre-stated polling process is disruptive and as such may be reverted. The editor who started the poll should not be tasked with preserving the disruptive added content. The editor who violated the polling process should be responsible for expressing their opposition in another way, such as adding their own proposal and supporting that, not the creator of the poll. This M.O. is frequently used by editors to disrupt polls that they think will go against them, even though polls are only used for data gathering and the result would require another level of discussion before implementation. Yworo (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree, but would be more informed if you could provide links to some examples. Gerardw (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Editor removing others' comments at Talk:C. S. Lewis and Talk:C.S. Lewis for context. Yworo wishes to set up a process to declare dissent disruption if it upsets a given set of unilaterally-imposed rules. I will note that Yworo, at least initially, did not set his poll up to "gather data"; he meant for it to define content. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Example

As an example of where "oppose" votes are counter-prodcutive, imagine a poll to determine editor support (not opposition) for specific wordings of the lead sentence. It could be constructed with the following rules.

Multiple choices are offered for the lead sentence. Each editor may support one or more choices. If an editor supports none of the choices, they add a proposal rather then making an "oppose" vote. The value of such a method is that on a contentious article, a talk subpage could be created for the poll. The poll could run continuously, with the lead sentence being changed whenever the proposal with the most weight changes (assuming all variants are permitted by Wikipedia rules). However, such a poll is easily disrupted by editors making oppose votes rather than a new proposal. The poll would look like this. The ordered lists automatically count supporters, but only if the other editors, out of respect, observe the stated methods and goals of the poll. This doesn't actually ever happen, so the originator either needs some way to enforce the polling structure and/or ignoring the polling structure needs to be defined as disruptive and something that can be reverted by the originator or anyone else who notices the violation of the polling definition. There is always another place or way to express or discuss the nature of one's opposition. Those who disrupt polls choose to disrupt polls rather than comment elsewhere as provided for.

Statement of process

First section states type of poll being conducted, rules for voting. In this case:

• If you support one or more proposals, indicate so by signing with "Support". If you think you have a better proposal, add it. Do not add oppose votes or reasons for opposition within the polling section. All opposing discussion should be placed after the polling sections in the subsection marked "Discussion".

Proposal 1

Proposed sentence one.

1. Support, comment, signed Editor1
2. Support, comment, signed Editor2

Proposal 2

Proposed sentence 2

1. Support, comment, signed Editor 2
2. Support, comment, signed Editor 3

Proposal 3

Proposed sentence 3

1. Support, comment, signed Editor 4

Discussion

All reasons against any proposal should be discussed here, not within the polling structure. Show support for existing proposals or add a new proposal. Do not add "oppose" votes to the poll.

---

Look at Talk:C. S. Lewis. The editors who ruined the poll as I set it up made no proposal of their own. If they had, it would have quickly gained more support than the other proposals. The editors responding in a disruptive manner actually impeded the progress to their own goal by doing so. This ain't right. If the polling method were to be sincerely tried, I am sure it would be found superior in the situations for which it is optimal. But the current "rules" as interpreted by those who wish to disrupt prevent this method from even being tried once. Yworo (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, this is contrary to existing policy and practice -- WP is all about discussion. It's perfectly fine for editors to explain why they don't like an existing option. And describing discussion as "ruining" your poll is in appropriate. I would also be very concerned about Push polling. Gerardw (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Gerardw: however good the intentions behind the poll, such a poll can only occur if all participants choose to follow suggested guidelines. If an established editor expresses a contrary view (e.g. to say that polls are evil, or to comment on the poll or the topic of the article), that view has to stand. No one should be accused of attempting to ruin a talk page by introducing a poll, and no one should be accused of attempting to ruin a poll by using a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For those wanting to run various types of poll without disruption, I suggest running the poll in your user space, which you are allowed to control, then moving the poll to article talk space as a sub-page when the poll is complete, or at least far enough along that the process has been accepted and is expected to continue to be followed. Yworo (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not correct that a user is allowed to control their user space. What is true is that a lot more latitude is expected in user space, and only unhelpful material would be altered, but that is an expectation, not some right. If User:X started fiddling with the user page of User:Y and persisted after warnings, X would be blocked. However, if Y wanted to invite commentary from editors with a view to making a substantive change in the encyclopedia, Y has no right to control contributions which consensus deems are useful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing comments your own talk page

Currently the guidelines read

"Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving."

and

"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred."

I would suggest changing the first statement to read "many experienced editors" rather that "most editors" simply because the "most editors" claim is factually untrue. A quick look at a couple of dozen user talk pages clearly shows that most editors do neither. I haven't done an exhaustive survey of random user talk ages, but I doubt that among the minority that move/remove comments archivers outnumber deleters.^{Withdrawn. See below.}

The second statement claims that archiving is preferred. Has this semi-policy been determined by consensus? I would argue that the policy is that neither is preferred; it is a choice that is up to the user. That being said, a variation on the first statement would seem to be appropriate here. It is helpful to know that, although it is your choice, a lot of experienced editors have chosen archiving over deleting. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the current wording is fine, and no useful purpose would be served by altering it. While the text might be numerically inaccurate at a particular time, it is simple and conveys the accurate message that archiving is preferred. One of the classic signs of a disruptive editor is the deletion of good faith comments at their talk page, and many experienced editors are aware of that. Since the guideline can't suggest that such removals are a symptom of a disruptive attitude (there are exceptions), the current wording is reasonable because it provides accurate guidance for new editors. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Current wording is fine. Many editors don't enough comments to make the work of having separate archive pages worthwhile; an editor who just leaves the comments there is essentially archiving them. Gerardw (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. If an editor who just leaves the comments there is essentially archiving them (which seems like a quite reasonable interpretation) the the statement is true; the vast majority archive. I withdraw that request.

Has the claim that archiving is preferred been determined by consensus? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Again I ask, where is the evidence that "archiving is preferred" other than the personal opinion of whoever inserted the text into this page? Was it discussed? Was a consensus reached? Is it a logical extension of some other existing policy that trumps the policy that the user can freely delete anything he wishes from his user page? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there some problem with a guideline providing guidance? Is there any doubt about what I wrote above? Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There is a doubt. "the accurate message that archiving is preferred" appears to be your personal preference, unsupported by consensus or policy. I don't archive my talk page, and I have yet to see any bad effect that stems from that decision. Everything is still available in the history. Archiving article talk pages is certainly preferred, because articles are edited collaboratively, but I am still waiting for someone to tell me a good reason why they think that archiving user talk pages is preferred. As for whether there some problem with a guideline providing guidance, it depends on the basis of the guidance, and this one seems to have been made up out of whole cloth. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

For the third and last time I ask, where is the evidence that "archiving is preferred" other than the personal opinion of whoever inserted the text into this page? Was it discussed? Was a consensus reached? Is it a logical extension of some other existing policy that trumps the policy that the user can freely delete anything he wishes from his user page? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Guy, have you ever found delivering an ultimatum (for the third and last time!) to be an effective rhetorical tactic? I'm interested in what you're getting at here, but I experience your questions as some kind of verbal trap, so that if someone gives the answer you're looking for, you can spring "it," whatever it is. Would it be possible for you to state your view on this without socratic elicitation? "Some experienced editors" (now struck) instead of "most editors" does seem to be a better way to state the true subject of the sentence, which is "the ad hoc Star Chamber that sets guidelines." Since we pretend that such a thing doesn't exist. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you are reading more into what I wrote than actually exists. "third and last time" is meant to convey two things and two things only: one, no answer was forthcoming the first two times I asked. Two: I am not going to waste anybody's time asking a fourth time, so if you have an answer, now is a good time. What I am getting at is that I read the page and saw two things that looked like they were not based upon any policy or consensus. The first I struck out after getting a reasonable answer. That leaves "archiving is preferred." Asking on what basis this policy was put into this page is not a "rhetorical tactic." I don't need tactics, because I am not opposing anyone. I have no problem with "archiving is preferred" -- just show me where it was discussed and what the consensus was. I have seen the opinion that users should be restricted from deleting things on their talk pages discussed -- I read a lot of discussion before asking this question -- and I have seen a strong consensus that with a few exceptions the user if free to delete anything without restriction or prejudice. Nowhere have I seen any discussion about archiving being preferred on user pages. I have seen discussion about archiving on article talk pages but not about archiving on user talk pages. So I asked. Perhaps I missed the place where this was discussed. No hidden agenda, no implications of a star chamber, just an honest good faith question: "who says archiving is preferred?" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Relatively few editors ever engage in policy discussion (that was my half-joking point about the star chamber), so adhering to policies and guidelines is more often a matter of consent than consensus: we consent by virtue of choosing to edit. There may be points in the guidelines that exist with only tacit consensus (that is, somebody put it in, and nobody bothered to change it). But to me it isn't clear whether you're criticizing the wording, or the process that produced it. If you think this point should be discussed, can't you open a discussion about it? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I am criticizing the wording. If I was challenging the process I would have said so. I don't give my tacit consensus for it to be there. I have been trying to have a discussion, to little effect. Clearly asking again and again if anybody knows any reason why archiving is preferred is not working, so please, tell me the magic words that will somehow convey the fact that I am challenging the statement "archiving is preferred" and will convey that rather simple concept in such a way that somebody, anybody, will discuss whether archiving is preferred and why they think so. Did I mention that I am trying to discuss whether archiving is preferred? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you why I prefer archiving: it is much easier to view "snapshots" of discussion pages to view what was going on. I use talk pages frequently to look for earlier evidence of copyright issues. Not all editors use a descriptive edit summary, so browsing the history doesn't necessarily disclose conversations. Too, when you find the diffs, you may lack context from conversations that followed shortly thereafter. While you can laboriously trace them, this is a time-consuming practice.

In terms of your question, the guideline has contained this text since April 2007, when content was copied from WP:USER ([5]). It entered that guideline in February 2007 ([6]), having been copied from WP:VAND. If you want to search backwards there to find out what, if any discussions occurred at the talk page of that policy, you may be able to determine what was said about it and when. I've put enough time into tracing it. :) I'm not sure there's real value to it. It hardly matters why in 2007 or 2006 or 2005 this content was written. What matters is if it is supported by consensus now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed top of page

In reaction to the number of recent posts here about articles, I've WP:BRD reformatted the top of the page to reduce the "wall of text" look in the hope the "Don't post general questions" text stands out more. Gerardw (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Banned Users

User:Gerardw has a problem with me listing banned users. Thoughts? CTJF83 21:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's incorrect (imprecise) to say banned users are not allowed to edit. Reversion is already discussed at WP:BAN, so it seems like instruction creep to include it here. Gerardw (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ya, well that's an essay, and banned user's not editing is a policy. Also, who cares if it is on WP:BAN, the person reading is looking at WP:TPO not BAN CTJF83 23:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

How would a user reviewing a page know the editor was banned? Gerardw (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Block log, WP:DUCK, I have lots of experience with User:Brucejenner, so I know when a new user editing is him. CTJF83 23:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Banned does not equal blocked, they are different things. What I'm getting at is to understand a user is banned implies an understanding of WP:BAN, so an editor who knows another editor is banned should already know their edits may be reverted. Gerardw (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

....true, I suppose...although me admitting that weakens my argument. CTJF83 23:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

First, Ctjf83, please try to make your comments more descriptive. This isn't about "listing banned users." It's about including comments by banned users in the list of exceptions to the "don't delete other editors talk page comments" rule.

Second, Gerardw, "incorrect" and "imprecise" have different meanings, I have no idea what "incorrect (imprecise)" means. Also, "to say banned users are not allowed to edit" misstates the nature of the edit that is being discussed here. This is about removal of other people's comments, not about whether they are allowed to make them. Only a small subset of things that an editor is not supposed to do are in the "OK to delete on sight" category.

I am not going to comment at this time as to which side of this content dispute appears to be right, but I would strongly encourage you two to get together and agree on exactly what it is that you are disagreeing about. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll clarify then -- it it incorrect to say "banned users are not allowed to edit" because the statement may be partially true -- what a banned editor may or may not edit depends on the terms of the ban. And I'm disagreeing that the proposed change to the guidelines should be made, as it is unnecessary and when documenting policies that which is unnecessary is detrimental. Gerardw (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing a banned user's comments, when it violates their ban clearly, is an "examples of appropriately editing others' comments". Not sure what your problem with listing it is. CTJF83 23:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that part of the problem is that your original "deleting comments by banned users, as they are not allowed to edit" wording is subtly different from your "Removing a banned user's comments, when it violates their ban clearly" paraphrase above. Gerardw, what do you think of "comments made in defiance of a ban"? That mirrors the "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." wording of WP:BAN. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some wording could be found that makes no attempt to define the precise circumstances when a banned user's comments may be removed? That way, there would not be any conflict between this guideline and another page. Something like saying that removing comments is also appropriate if permitted by a policy such as WP:BAN. On the issue, I have seen long term abusers have all their edits and comments removed, so at least in some cases it is clearly acceptable to remove comments from banned users. It could be argued that there would be no reason to add such a generic statement here, but probably this guideline should alert readers that other circumstances exist (particularly on the principle that a reader might infer, namely that if it is not listed here, then it must not be allowed). Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) I'd suggest changing

• Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, violations of policy about living persons, or copyright violations.

to

• Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies.

This would seem to achieve both Ctfj83's goal and adding a mention and mine preference for keeping policy pages as compact as possible.Gerardw (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! Sounds good to me. CTJF83 02:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Made the change for now; of course we can't claim community wide consensus until more editors have had an opportunity to review/contribute to the discussion. Gerardw (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Perhaps make the edit in 24 hours? My struck out comment was from a misreading due to edit conflict. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2011 (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. [7]) and (b) discussing the edits of a specific user using a neutral title. (e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11], 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)