Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 1

Guideline order?

Here's the current order of the guidelines:

• Avoid markup
• Communicate (don't repeat yourself)
• Assume good faith
• Sign your posts
• Use indenting
• Separate discussion topics
• Proceed vertically
• Voting
• Feel free to ignore typographical conventions
• Make links freely
• Don't misrepresent other people
• Archive rather than delete
• Summarize discussion (or refactor)
• Keep to the topic
• Use UTC
• When discussing the name of the page, cite the current name

As I've said in a comment, I'd like to order these in order of importance, but have no idea which is more important then the others. Anybody have any ideas of how to order these? --Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 22:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Merger

I'm planning to merge this with Wikipedia:Wikiquette and perhaps push back some to Wikipedia:Talk page, since there is a lot of redundant content all around. --Beland 06:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please, don't. I created the second incarnation of this page (the one that contained all the material formerly found at Wikipedia:Talk Page) for a reason: The material I moved here was overshadowing the rest of Wikipedia:Talk Page (which really deserves to be more about the "How Do I Do This?" end of things then about Best Practices), and Wikipedia:Wikiquette wasn't the place for much of this stuff. (I view this page as being about Best Practices, while Wikiquette is more about "This is the stuff that ignoring can get you into trouble".) --Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 13:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use of HTML comments

I've encountered a case where a fellow uses HTML comments on talk pages, which may subtly change the meaning, clarify or otherwise add to what he's saying. Trouble is, being in HTML comments they're only ever seen by whoever edits the discussion in order to respond. Has anyone else encountered this? If so, perhaps it should be in our talk page guidelines as something to avoid. It may be cute, but it isn't really a good way to communicate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As someone who on occasion do this I'm not clear on what the problem is. If it's used to add parenthical comments, and in places where it can be safely presumed to be seen, it's innoffensive.

• An example on a talk page - "Just a reminder to close the AfD when you speedy something. "

If it's used as a way to make incivil remarks or PAs, there's no problem as these pages don't say "in plain site".

• This is an attack, and should be treated as such - "Please examine the policy rearding the GFDL of this photo. "

It's thus only a problem if it's used in some was to attempt to mislead editors who don't click "edit". What would be the point, and I can't actually think of an example.

brenneman^(t)(c) 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well anyone reading the above would be very puzzled by it because it doesn't make sense unless you can read the HTML comments--which you cannot, by and large, on most web browsers, in normal browsing mode. I just don't see the point of doing this; as can be seen (or rather, not seen) above, it impedes communication. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tony Sidaway. I think HTML comments in talk pages might need to be considered harmful. Remember that the entire purpose of a Talk page is communication. The exchange of ideas and information. Obscuring some of one's commentary on a talk page (even when done in good faith) is directly counter to that goal. So why do it? Keep in mind that not everyone reading a talk page is going to edit it, not should we inspire a trend to start editing every page to look for obscured comments.

About the only time I think it make sense to use HTML comments in Wikipedia are as explict direction to other editors. Things like "Please remember to do such-and-such when you edit this" and things like that. Even then, I would tend to favor their use only in main articles (which should not have such direction visible normally). Talk pages can -- and maybe should -- have any instructions visible. --DragonHawk 17:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned comments

Maybe there should be a paragraph on here explaining the unsigned template? I only bring it up because I don't know how to use it, and I don't know where to find an explanation! This seems like the place for it, if anybody cares to add that. --ParkerHiggins | Talk 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of aiding this user: it's easy if you know templates; to wit:

{{unsigned|Nobody}} becomes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody (talk • contribs)

Hope this helps. (And no, I don't think this belongs in the article.) ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Enforcing the Guidelines

The talk page Talk:Stanley Hilton has a long all-caps rant about how bad Stanley Hilton is. Is it appropriate to delete things like this which go against the guidelines? --ScottAlanHill 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know an answer to this question as well. The talk page for Sonny Moore has two anonymous comments (apparently made by fans) which contribute nothing toward the development of the article. I am curious if it is appropriate to delete these comments. --Cymsdale 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing other people's Talk posts

The Talk page guidelines don't currently mention anything about deleting (except for space reasons) or fixing other people's posts (e.g. spelling) on Talk pages; what's the consensus about this? --ScottAlanHill 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, it is the rare editor indeed who objects to spelling and formatting fixes. --maru (talk) contribs 03:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Should new comments go at end of Talk pages?

Would it be helpful to add a guideline explicitly stating that new comment sections should be added at the end of a talk page, not at the beginning? This doesn't seem to be spelt out, but is partly suggested by two current guidelines in the Layout section, which read:

• Proceed descendingly: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the chronologically later it was made. . . .
• Separate discussion topics: Put each new conversation topic or major thread under a different section header (== Subject ==). . . . The "Post a comment" feature can be used to do this automatically.

(Note that "Post a comment" adds the new comment at the end not the start.) There seem to be many cases where people add sections to Talk pages at the beginning, and someone else then moves the new section to the end. Sometimes this is reverted (it happened to me at [1] [2]), so maybe there is dispute about the issue. It would be good if the guidelines could indicate what the preferred practice is. -- JimR 01:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, definitely at the end. --maru (talk) contribs 03:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No one has opposed the idea of a specific guideline that new conversation topics should be at the end, so I've modified the Layout section to say this. I've also re-ordered the guidelines in that section to position the one about topics first, since the order and headings for topics seem more significant than the details of what is in each topic. -- JimR 10:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Using *

What about using *s to indicate a responce to a "post"?

• A post by me

• RESPONCE 1

• RESPONSE TO RESPONSE 1

• RESPONSE 2

I think it looks alot better and it's great for organizing complex discussions.--Mboverload 05:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Layout section already says:

Other indentation systems are equally acceptable and widely used (such as a threaded tree format, like that often seen in email clients).

Doesn't this implicitly cover the use of starred lists as an alternative? -- JimR 05:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess. Thanks Jim for looking it up! --Mboverload 04:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Help with a Constant Vandal

So I've recently been guarding Manna against a constant vandal, who tends to cover the entire article with Bible quote that are totally irrevelent, disturbing pictures, and endless discussions about drugs and drug experiences (he mostly believes that Manna is really psydeleic mushrooms.) We've been able to guard against most of it and revert quickly, but now he has taken up stake on the talk page. He's making it his own website in a way, putting all the things we won't let him put in the article. On a lot of his recent edits to the main article, he tells people to "See the talk page for more info." I mean, that's just wrong. See: Talk:Manna.

My question: would it be kosher to delete this stuff? It seems like a pretty inappropriate usage of a talk page.

Thanks! Sparsefarce 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Guideline on not changing one's comments after the fact?

I've been dealing with an editor who has forsworn use of the preview button - he sometimes makes talk/AfD/etc. edits in 5-minute-instalments, changing what he's written before. Also, he has no problem with heavily editing his own previous comments, e.g. just deleting incivil comments after they've been pointed out to him. Shouldn't we have a standard prohibiting this around somewhere?

If not, are there any objections to adding the following to "other conventions"? -- Sandstein 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do not edit existing comments. Just as in the real world, you can't unsay something once it's been said. Do not change or delete a comment after it has been saved, regardless of whether it's your own or someone else's. However, the following changes can be acceptable depending on context, provided that the substance of the discussion is not changed:
  • Making editorial amendments to your own comments (such as fixing a typo) if this is done immediately after saving the comment. (But try to use the preview button instead.)
  • Reverting vandalism and deleting personal information added without the consent of the person concerned.
  • Deleting e-mail addresses provided by inexperienced editors, in order to protect them from spam.
  • Archiving a discussion.

I think editing your own comment to remove (or at least strike) personal attacks you made and later regret is fine provided you make a note that you did so, ideally with a diff showing what exactly you did. It is useful to be able to do things like strike your vote in an AfD after somebody else has provided new information, and you acknowledge thatr your own comment is invalid. Sneakily altering your own comments in a way that makes the comments after yours look stupid is bad, though. Kusma (討論) 19:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no objection to retracting or modifying a comment that has not been responded to. And, what is the possible objection to editing a comment by striking out? I see no need for a note in such case -- what else could the strikeout possibly mean? How about the following?

• Once a comment has been responded to, do not modify it in any way that would make one or more response(s) seem pointless, odd or misconceived. Generally, until a comment has been responded to, it may be withdrawn or modified; however, you should use preview to reduce the necessity for this. Some guidelines:
  • If you regret a statement, retract it by enclosing it in <s></s> so that everyone knows what was changed.
  • If you make a statement so unfortunate that you think it must be expunged in the interests of comity, insert a placeholder in the text such as, "[thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author]." The important thing is to make sure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. Of course, the authors of those statements may then wish to replace their statement with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"
  • When archiving, archive the comment and responses together so that everything makes sense. If you then refactor in the current discussion, do so fairly to all parties.

My suggestion.Robert A.West (Talk) 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think that just my bolded sentence would be perfect. This would be sufficient for a charge if things come to an RfArb, and minimizes the instruction creep. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I forgot to think of strikethroughs. They should be mentioned, as it's people who don't know about them who need this guideline in the first place. How about that?

• Once a comment has been responded to, do not change it in any way that would make the responses seem pointless, odd or misconceived. You can use strikethroughs (<s></s>) where appropriate, or make your changes clear in other ways.

... my suggestion. Sandstein 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Approve. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose I think the deletion of uncivil comments is commendable, and should certainly not be prohibited. Do we want to maximise strife, or minimise it? The internet fosters more incivility than any other medium due to the lack of face to face or even voice to voice contact and the lack of time delays, so people need to be able to withdraw comments they regret and indeed they should be encouraged to do so. There are massive differences between vocal comments and wiki comments, and it is wholly inappropriate to suggest that they should be treated in the same way. Piccadilly 00:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstand the point of this proposal. Of course people should be able to withdraw what they have said, or to apologise. However, they should not just delete or overwrite their statements. They should strike them out, or insert a placeholder, as proposed below by Robert A.West. The above wording makes this clear, I think. Sandstein 11:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What I think we want to prevent

Since it is improper to remove others' comments, allowing users to delete without inserting a placeholder could mean something like this. Assume a heated argument over style:

• Obviously, we need to use Harvard Referencing, and only an ignorant slime like User B could disagree. User:Example_A
  • That was a bigoted and insulting comment, and you should apologize for it. User:Example_B

If User A then removes his comment, we are left with:

• I think that we should use Harvard Referencing.User:Example_A
  • That was a bigoted and insulting comment, and you should apologize for it. User:Example_B

This makes User B -- the innocent party -- look like an idiot. I think this is undesirable, and fundamentally what we want to avoid. I see no objection to a placeholder.

• Obviously, we need to use Harvard Referencing, [stupid and uncivil comment deleted]. User:Example_A
  • That was a bigoted and insulting comment, and you should apologize for it. User:Example_B

If someone has a better way to phrase this, please feel free. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, but I think strikethroughs should be preferred, otherwise people will have to hunt through diffs to understand what exactly was going on. Sandstein 11:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that 99.9% of the time, strikethrough is the right answer. There are some truly offensive remarks that might be better removed altogether, and there is the occasional horribly unfortunate typo. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Netspeak and/or timestamps

I'd like to propose a new guideline. No netspeak, thereby improving the readability of users' comments and contributions. If any certain user is unable or unwilling to type proper English (unless English is not their first language), they shouldn't even be using Wikipedia. In most cases, English is taught in schools for a reason.

In addition, altering the (already posted) timestamps of another user's comment should not be allowed. — Nathan ^(talk) 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the guideline should be amended to discourage netspeak. However, if somebody just doesn't speak English well and are not working to improve it, I don't think they should be penalized, as they might not have time to improve their English. -- Where is Where? 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Edited the above to reflect this, also added timestamps. — Nathan ^(talk) 00:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a guideline about netspeak is unnecessary. If user's comments look silly and hard to understand because they use netspeak or slang, you can just tell them that without writing an instruction for it. Editing other's timestamps is already covered by editing the comments of others. Kusma (討論) 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bots spamming user talk pages

Should we just say that bots spamming user talk pages are completely unacceptable, or are there legit cases? The obvious problem is that bots won't read replies, some bots like User:Orphanbot even violate the bot policy, the maintainer doesn't watch the corresponding "user talk" page abusing it for archiving and logging. -- Omniplex 19:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page disambiguation

People interested in the Talk page guideline that it is unacceptable to edit other people's talk page postings without permission may like to have a look at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Talk page disambiguation. -- JimR 11:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page hell

That's the best way I can describe some of the talk pages I encounter. The cause is usually a prolonged argument over a very small matter, and it comes about because one side is, or both sides are, stating opinions with complete disregard to wikipedia policies. It is hugely counterproductive and widespread. Clearly there needs to be a clarification of what conduct is expected in order to stop this. I have therefore highlighted wikipedia policy as something which needs to be applied to talk pages. This will immediately give an indisputable guideline for people to follow — many people are certainly not following it at the moment. It will also give admins a clearly-defined way of helping to sort out raging disputes, and, if necessary, blocking editors who continue to prevent amicable editing to proceed, because of intense POV arguing. This is already implicit, but has obviously not registered in many cases.

Editors themselves also need to be empowered to address this. I have therefore put in a recommendation for the use of the {{fact}} tag. I have found already in practice how helpful this has been in certain situations, to highlight precisely where certain problems are occurring. Editors who are driven to despair on occasion by an unrelenting opinionated argument have been able to find a very simple and effective way of addressing this.

Tyrenius 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As one of the people involved in a recient debate about this matter, I thought it would be wise to comment. My opinion is that the {fact} tag could prove useful, as long as:

• Attempts to reach concensus by discussion have broken down
• Unsubstantiated claims are being made
• Requests for evidence have been made and have been ignored or dismissed

and

• A post is made after applying the {fact} tags explaining exactly why it was added

My reasoning for wanting the above is that to apply the {fact} tag, one has to edit other people's comments, which is generally seen as a bad thing. It also discourages tagging of all statements. LinaMishima 03:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to the above:

• If there was still a viable ongoing discussion, editors would not need to resort to the fact tag anyway.
• If claims were substantiated then it renders the tag redundant.
• Again someone is only likely to want to use it in a situation where other discourse has been ignored.
• The fact tag is self-explanatory — the poster considers that the statement needs verification.
• This is not what is meant by editing other people's statements. There is no reason why any statement lacking verification should not be tagged. If people can't verify it, one has to question the validity of making it.

It would be counter-productive to put conditions on using it, as it's not going to do any harm, and will do a lot of good. Editors in a viable working relationship would probably not need it anyway, and with those who are in a dispute, I have found that its use has been extremely effective, and taken a lot of the heat out of the argument. It has a neutral anonymous feel to it and is therefore less provocative than a personal demand for something to be verified. I don't know of any reason to stop if being used at the moment anyway. Let's not bog things down in unnecessary red tape. Tyrenius 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

General overhaul

There is a change in the order of sections, so that it starts positively with an affirmation of policy and ways in which the talk page can be used, rather than negatively as before with the section on unacceptable behaviour. I have retitled the section as "how to use article talk pages", as it is about article talk and not user talk. I found this rather confusing when I started on Wiki. This section now has more uses that occur in practice and hopefully this will encourage more editors to make fuller use of the talk page.

There has been a general clean up, mainly to clarify and make it more user-friendly, particularly for the less experienced editor. I have not attempted to establish any new guidelines, so much as demonstrating existing ones. However, there is one point which others may need to examine, where I have made the guidance on editing comments a bit stricter. Previously in the text it was rather ambiguous as to whether someone could or couldn't edit their own text. This presented a "loophole" which I know has led to some confusion and also permitted undesirable retrospective editing. It now seems to be generally accepted that we don't want people to engage in revisionism, and the text should be allowed to stand as a record of the debate.

The section on headings is rather wordy and needs to be made more immediately accessible with subheadings if necessary.

Tyrenius 08:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)