Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Notes

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)