Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Section headings

I think this guideline is problematic. What if someone starts a section headed "Mangoes", a discussion develops, and then an editor says, "'Mangoes' looks weird; I'm going to change the heading to 'Political timing'". Now, maybe the discussion has drifted off to a point where "Political timing" makes sense as a heading. However, when the section was originally started, "Mangoes" made sense, and "Political timing" made no sense at all. The original posting then becomes incomprehensible. Why did Wacko Jacko make a posting about "Political timing" and then ramble on about mangoes? Effectively, people who have gone off topic are rewarded and are able to colonise the discussion. It would be better for people who have gone off on a tangent to start their own discussion with a new heading, rather than taking over Wacko Jacko's section. Simply because other people want to discuss political timing, does not mean that mangoes are unimportant.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

In what way is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages "problematic"? It already says

"Make a new heading for a new topic"

and

"Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed".

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the paragraph on "Section headings" under Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are talking about.

What say we replace

"It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant."

With

"It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge fragmented discussions under one heading or to split a discussion into two sections if the topic drifts."

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That would probably be better. But I don't see why this guideline exists. If this was regularly practised it would cause so many problems:

• It doesn't say not to change the heading if that changes the meaning of other posts. Many new posts are of the form: "Mangoes: Why is this important?" Changing this to "Political timing: Why is this important?" completely changes the meaning. It also changes the meaning of subsequent posts such as, "I agree" or "Reliable sources say this is important". It can be hard to see other editors' points of view and ascertain whether a change in heading affects what they said.
• It says to discuss the change with the original poster if the change is likely to be controversial. This seems to promote discussion about the discussion, Talk page talk, which is undesirable. It doesn't say you need consensus, so how is the change decided? Clearly, since it says the original poster doesn't "own" the heading, the original poster has no right of veto.
• It gives editors carte blanche to go over old posts where the original poster is uncontactable and change the headings to what they consider to be appropriate.
• It encourages fussy, bossy behaviour, interference with other people's postings, and petty disputes. Why, why, why?--Jack Upland (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

please correct me if I am wrong, but it sort of sounds like you disagree with

"Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate"

In particular you mention "interference with other people's postings" as if the header was part of the post.

I think the flaw here is in the "discuss the change with the original poster if the change is likely to be controversial" advice. That's bad advice. The change should not be controversial in the first place. Misuse of headers is rampant, and it is always appropriate to replace a one-sided header like "Definition of a personal attack is...off" with something neutral and descriptive such as "Definition of a personal attack". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with the guideline that the original poster doesn't "own" the heading. To a greater or lesser degree, that heading is an integral part of the post. It is contradictory to say "Don't edit other editor's comments", but do change the heading. I think recommending a discussion is problematic however you look at it. The best policy, however, is avoiding conflict, which you have done by ignoring that other heading.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Trying to fix everything on Wikipedia is like drinking out of a firehose. I only fix non-neutral headings when they are causing a problem.

As to who owns the heading, there appears to be an overwhelming consensus against doing it your way. I could be wrong, of course; an RfC would settle the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether this creates problems in articles about zoology or Renaissance drama, but in politics articles and other contentious areas, it tends to invite pointy and POV title-tweaking that's not helpful and causes its own set of problems. I think Jack Upland has identified room for improvement here. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this could create problems across the board. People use a variety of headings ranging from "Hey Yankee!" to "Definition of a personal attack is...off". These might not fit the guidelines. I've been editing almost since Wikipedia began, and I've never seen those guidelines. I don't understand how there can be an "overwhelming consensus" in favour of editing original headings if there is "Misuse of headers is rampant" and "Trying to fix everything on Wikipedia is like drinking out of a firehose". This guideline isn't being enforced. Editors have voted with their feet. This guideline is just a licence for an officious busybody to selectively change headings he or she doesn't like, thereby generating pointless conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Could someone summarize if this discussion actually led to any change? Thx CapnZapp (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it hasn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

guidance on talk page size

On the subject of how large one's user talk page can get, as far as I know, this page is the only policy or guideline page to discuss it. The current phrasing is As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. WP:TALKCOND

I searched the archives. Unless I'm mistaken, this question has not been discussed since 2012: Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_9#The_guideline_is_outdated_and_should_be_changed_completely.

Q. Should we increase the limit† on talk page size from 75K?
†) Yes, I'm aware it's a rule of thumb and not a hard limit.

The benefit of of an increase would be to ease enforcement. It is incredibly hard in cases where a user has a much too large talk page to argue "you need to trim it to 75K". "75K??" they say, "that's nothing!".

You might think "but how about letting the editor off the hook if they reduce it to 100K or 200K..." but that just suggests the number is out of date. I mean, if we have a guideline or rule of thumb, what it specifies is really the only reasonable target. What's the point of bothering users to follow our guideline, and then not having the guideline as the target? (And if you want to argue "but don't bother the user then", you're really arguing for the limit to be increased or removed altogether).

Mostly to focus our discussions, how about I offer a specific change suggestion.

Proposal: Change the following sentence

from

As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions.

to

As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 150 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions.

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm very leery of participating in a discussion that speaks of "enforcement" and "letting users off the hook" in the context of something so trivial as talk page size. EEng 17:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the editor kindly gave DGG two weeks to take care of things. Of course, DGG and you, EEng, are the worst offenders, haha. You doing alright? I was going to leave a note on your talk page but my laptop would crash! ;) Drmies (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm down to 400K. And as everyone knows it's the images that count, not the text. EEng 17:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Mea culpa! Drmies (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to rephrase the start of the discussion, User:EEng. Even better, feel free to start a new talk section where you raise the issue in your own words, and I'll close this one. Let us not derail into discussing decorum. CapnZapp (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I deliberately retain closed discussions which I think to be of continuing general interest , and many people have been appreciative of this. But it is currently too long--I think perhaps half the size would be much more practical. : The excess size of my page is because I have not kept up-to-date in removing those that are no longer of general interest or have been superseded by other discussions, or in removing those which the intent was not to keep them once they were closed-- the need to remove old material is to focus on the important current material. The need to keep the page within limits is to facilitate using the contents. I One possible solution for this I might consider is hatting discussions, to reduce the rendered size in the browser. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, DGG , you're so sweet in your innocence. Hatting has absolutely zero (read: ZERO) effect on bandwidth usage, load times, memory usage, processor cycles, or anything else whatsoever -- other than the amount of scrolling someone has to do to get to the bottom of the page. EEng 01:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

User:DGG I will be much more comfortable discussing issues pertaining to your talk page on your talk page. Let this discussion be about the general "rule of thumb" that we then apply equally to everybody. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

As most of the guidance on article size at WP:SIZESPLIT seems to be applicable to talk pages as well, increasing the recommended size limit before archiving clearly runs counter to most of the considerations we already endorse. Consequently, I think it would be better to change this guidance to:

As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 50 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions.

Optionally, we could re-use the ranges suggested on SIZESPLIT to present more nuanced guidance here. --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Any change here should also deal with a requirement that users have a talk page, and keep relevant material on it long enough to be discussed. I recognize this will invovle a much larger change. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• WP:CREEP. SIZESPLIT is for articles and is motivated by almost completely different reasons (besides, in the end, being hopelessly cookie-cutter even for articles). I continue to find it incredible that people are focused on the text size of the wikisource, which is nothing compared to even a single image on a page. For article talk pages, I suppose we could suggest that resolved (or unresolved but stale) discussions should be archived sooner or later when they're no longer useful for e.g. the edification of later visitors (whenever that is), and particularly if there are several of them. If that means human judgment is needed, and sometimes leaves multiple large discussions and a large page overall, so be it.
  For user talk pages, let's see the evidence that there's a significant problem that needs solving, much less one that needs solving via some mindless rule. EEng 21:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

RexxS

As a counter-argument, most of the rationale behind SIZESPLIT revolves around a human reader's limited capacity for long articles. An editor's capacity for a long talk page I would think is only distantly related - for one thing, your business on a talkie seldom involves more than a single section at a time. CapnZapp (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

DGG

Short counter-argument: no, I'm simply discussing if 75K remains appropriate in this day and age?

Longer: You need to have to be much more specific, DGG, about what you mean by "a requirement that users have a talk page" and "keep relevant material on it long enough", or your comment will likely not be understood and maybe even disregarded. It's not that I have to explain to you that you're free to split up a very long page into several user talk subpages of manageable size. Or that the subject of an archived talk section can be "re-opened" simply by starting a new talk section to resume the discussion. Cheers! CapnZapp (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

User:EEng What is your specific suggestion? That we remove any numeric rule of thumb entirely? Just chiming in to call the current phrasing "mindless" is not constructive. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing the number entirely. EEng 21:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Did you actually read SIZESPLIT? "SIZESPLIT is for articles and is motivated by almost completely different reasons" – that's patently untrue. SIZESPLIT gives five considerations:

1. time to read the page – there is no evidence that readers can read talk pages any quicker than articles, so the guidance applies equally;
2. some users have a low speed service – there is no evidence that users' service speed increases on talk pages and slows down for articles, so the guidance applies equally;
3. some users have unstable connections – there is no evidence that users connection stability is greater on talk pages than articles, so the guidance applies equally;
4. some users have a pay per kilobyte service – there is no evidence that users' service gets cheaper for talk pages than articles, so the guidance applies equally;
5. some users may access Wikipedia through a mobile phone or smartphone whose browsers might truncate long pages – there is no evidence that smartphone browsers truncate less on talk pages than on articles, so the guidance applies equally;

How do you square those with your assertion "motivated by almost completely different reasons"? That really is well off the mark.

@CapnZapp: Even though readers may often read one section or thread of a talk page per visit, it is just as likely that readers may often read just one section of an article. In fact our statistics show that a significant number of visits to an article are brief, suggesting the reader only looks up a single fact before moving on. Your assertion that "most of the rationale behind SIZESPLIT revolves around a human reader's limited capacity for long articles" is clearly false, as most of the rationale behind SIZESPLIT revolves around other factors, and I've demonstrated that by quoting the five considerations given in SIZESPLIT. Why not address the actual guidance there, rather than making up your objections to it? --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

SIZESPLIT is indeed about articles and issues about their size related to reading and navigating them; one sentence offers some questionable claims about unstable connections and so on. Find evidence that significant numbers of editors have browsers that truncate long pages and then we'll talk. EEng 01:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your summary of SIZESPLIT as being about five equally important criteria, User:RexxS. It's about readability, and then also that "some users" have technical issues. More importantly, SIZESPLIT concerns article space, not talk space, so if you want to be a stickler for procedure, which I think you need to be to argue there are five equally important criteria, then it is also true that none of the five criteria are relevant at all. Anyway, arguing whether SIZESPLIT applies only muddles the issue, stealing away focus from the question asked here. You are certainly free to argue for a 50 kB rule of thumb, no need to involve SIZESPLIT, and it has been noted. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: "questionable claims" only in your opinion. SIZESPLIT has project-wide consensus, and there is no indication that the five factors there apply any less to talk pages than to articles. You find evidence that those factors affecting articles don't affect talk pages and then your opinion might be worth listening to.

@CapnZapp: I disagree with your contention that the five factors are not of equal importance. For any given reader, one or another may be the most important; it's no help being the world's fastest reader if you can't get a connection to the article you're trying to read. It's not just about readability. The factors raised in SIZESPLIT go right to the heart of this question, and SIZESPLIT has project-wide consensus that it contains useful guidance. Those factors are clearly relevant when discussing the present question, and must carry far more weight when trying to reach a conclusion on the best figure to use for guidance than your suggestion which seems to be a figure plucked out of thin air, with no rationale behind it. --RexxS (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

SIZESPLIT has project-wide consensus – That's odd, because right at the top it says it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

The handwringing about truncation and so on was added in 2011 with no discussion at all. Even, generously, assuming that that was in fact a realistic issue at that time, I renew my call for evidence that it remains an issue ten years later. EEng 17:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It was a problem in Firefox 3,[1] and Firefox 3 is still listed in the mw:Compatibility#Browser support matrix. (Inclusion is generally determined by a certain percentage of traffic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone posts to stackoverflow that some big (we don't know how big) page (not a Wikipedia page) was being truncated in some way, for some unknown reason, on Firefox ==>3<== in ==>2009<=== (six weeks into Obama's first term, if that helps set context) and based on that we're supposed to be worrying about page length here on this project in 2020? Uh huh. Got anything else? EEng 22:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You seemed to be having trouble believing that it was considered a realistic problem when this was added in 2011. I have demonstrated that there were rational reasons for this concern at the time. There are links to relevant reports in Mozilla's bug database in the replies, if you want to learn more about it. Whether we should care about readers using old hardware that can't be upgraded past Firefox 3.5? Well, the MediaWiki devs apparently do, but I won't tell you what your values should be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Note: At this time, I extended an invitation to the Village Pump for more input. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm happy with retaining the present rule of thumb, but would emphasize that it is simply a rule of thumb, not something that should be enforced on anyone. I would also note that there seems to be some confusion above. The proposal doesn't seem to be about talk space, but user talk space, which is seen as a partial exception to WP:OWN. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the guideline does not separate between user talk and regular talk, and the rule of thumb therefore applies equally to both. Please tell me if I'm wrong (since the language explaining this could then probably be improved). Having separate guidelines would of course be one reasonable argument to make... CapnZapp (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As for "it is simply a rule of thumb, not something that should be enforced on anyone" I consider that a separate second issue. When we have agreed on a number (or not to have a number etc) I plan on asking what a "rule of thumb" means (in a separate talk page section), unless someone beats me to it of course. Let's just not discuss it here intermixed with my original question above, please. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Rule of thumb" is a perfectly normal English phrase, not something that requires an idiosyncratic definition on Wikipedia. It being a rule of thumb there is no material difference between 75K and 150K. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If you want, we could set up a second talk section right now. CapnZapp (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Why on Earth would I want that? As I said, "rule of thumb" is a perfectly normal English phrase that already has a standard meaning. Why should Wikipedia editors give it a different meaning? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Then you will have no problems answering my questions over here, Phil: #Rule of thumb. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, by all means let's not intermix one misbegotten, pointless discussion with another misbegotten, pointless discussion. Pointless discussions should proceed in an orderly fashion. EEng 11:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Seriously? SERIOUSLY??? You're inviting people from VP (policy) to talk about whether 50K or 75K is a better number for a limit no one pays attention to so as to better address an urgent problem for which there's no evidence of an actual problem? EEng 11:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Given that I usually delete messages from my main user talk page once I have read them (I treat my talk page as being similar to voicemail)... and thus rarely (if ever) get close to any arbitrary “limit”... anyone who goes over the limit can hereby have my “extra” unused KBs. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Now see, that's what Wikipedia is all about: people helping people. EEng 12:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Remember..

The Rule of Thumb

• Uhm...expand size - 5g is coming, internet speed is increasing. Oh, and add anchors to sections so they're easier to find. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'd rather see talk pages reverse chronology so I don't have to scroll through all the old crud on the excessively long pages. Other than that, 25kb/75kb/1mb, as long as you aren't takes minutes to load, shrug Slywriter (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  ^^^ THIS. When can we change this to be in line with how the rest of the world works? Levivich (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Lev, see how I get the creative juices flowing with a simple comment? That must be why they call it a "Talk page". ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  We shouldn't be trying to do what the rest of the world does, but what is best for Wikipedia. For example, the rest of the world does not create the world's foremost encyclopedia, or follow our basic content policies. I see the forward chronology of talk pages both as obviously logical, and as something to be praised. People should look at previous discussions on talk and user talk pages before commenting themselves, rather than risk continual repetition. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  I do not find that argument persuasive. When people go to a user's talk page to start a new discussion, they press the + or "new discussion" button at the top. They don't read the whole talk page. If anything, putting the most-recent discussion at the top of the talk page will increase the chances that a new visitor to the page will read it and avoid repetition. Talk pages come in two flavors: (1) those that aren't archived, which nobody is going to read because they're too long, and (2) those that are archived, and few editors will read through someone's archives before staring a new thread–even a keyword search is more effort than most will put in. So, I don't think forward chronology is any kind of improvement on the reverse chronology that is the standard for just about every other type of text-based communication software ever made. There's a reason everyone uses reverse chronology: the most recent communications are the most important, and thus should be the easiest to get to (the least scrolling). If we were really in the 21st century, or even the late 20th, we would have recently-edited sections automatically moved to the top of the page. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Finally, something Levivich and I completely disagree on. I suggest we carry out the debate in Burma-Shave format. EEng 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  OK here's the Burma-Shave summary of my argument above:

  NO ONE READS
  WHEN IT'S TOO LONG
  NO ONE READS
  WHEN IT'S ALL GONE
  NEW THREADS SHOULD GO AT THE TOP
  THE OTHER WAY IS WRONG
  Burma-shave

  Rebuttal? Levivich (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  no shade at y'all, the burma shave joke is a good one generally speaking, but am I the only one getting a little bored with it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Writ Keeper, Bored? With Burma-Shave? Impossible. Jeb³_{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 15:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  He's the guy who said to Shakespeare, "What? Another sonnet?" EEng 16:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  dude did like a hundred of them. get a job already Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  Bored with it? Don't you mean beard with it? ... No, nothing? ... I'll show myself out now. --Jayron32 18:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Writ Keeper: Bored with Burma Shave? Say it ain't so. Can I play too? The Bards old Sonnets / They aren't too long / Who can be bored / With his cool songs / Got a wall of text? / Cut it down. / Burma-Shave davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  When people go to a user's talk page to start a new discussion, they press the + or "new discussion" button at the top.

  I wish. Or at least if you're going to start a new section by editing the last one on the page (example), please change (or at least remove) the section heading in the edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  Like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Why? - That is, we need to ask ourselves the reason to have limits at all. From there, we can develop rules of thumb for specific cases. Some common answers to "Why" include:
  • Readability/usability by the reader
  • Edit-ability of the whole page by web browsers that may be running on slow computers
  • Time to download by people with slow or poor-quality internet connections
  • Server resources expended with each page load or cache purge

Other than readability, the 75K limit is probably lower than it needs to be. My recommendation is that any guidance other than "don't overload server or blow past Wiki-software limits" or "don't make loading and editing the page impractical for a significant portion of users" should be over-ride able by "local consensus" or for a user's own talk page, by that user. So if we decide it's 75K, but the local consensus on a particular talk page says 200K, and that's not going to cause technical problems for the server, editors, or readers, then 200K it shall be for that particular talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• The portion of the talk-page size attributable to discussion of forming a local consensus as to what the talk-page size should be – will that count toward the size limit, or will it be deductible?
• Server resources expended with each page load or cache purge – Are you joking? Am I just dreaming that it's 2020? Is it really still 1999? EEng 18:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

EEng 18:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: I wasn't joking about the server limits or more accurately, software limits. Two recent discussions where these had an impact are here and here (2nd is article-page-related). There are several Wikipedia tracking categories devoted just to listing pages affected by these limits. You can find them listed among the other tracking categories at Special:TrackingCategories. It's my understanding that some of these limits exist not because the Wikipedia servers are wimpy (they are not) but rather to make it a bit harder for someone to do a denial-of-service attack on them. I think I read that over on Meta or one of the other Wikimedia projects, but unfortunately I don't remember where. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You didn't say anything about server limits or more accurately, software limits being a relevant consideration for a possible page-size limit; you talked about Server resources expended with each page load or cache purge, which is quite different and none of our business whatsoever as editors (with the narrow exception of template editors) – see WP:PERFORMANCE. EEng 23:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

My initial choice of wording was imprecise and in retrospect, misleading and confusing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. EEng 00:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: How about we remove all specific thresholds for user talk page length per WP:CREEP. We should be worrying about article content, not policing other people's talk pages. The penalty for having a talk page that is long enough to be cumbersome is that, in the natural course of events, people who comment there will complain about it. That should be sufficient; we don't need rules and bright lines and penalties for noncompliance. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problem with some guidance on the subject, but it seems that there are lots of busybodies around who can't see a bit of guidance for what it is, rather than an excuse to hassle people. I would prefer to do away with the busybodies, but it seems that that sort of editor has become the majority here, so maybe we should do away with the guidance so they can do their unencyclopedic busywork elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

What value do you ascribe to the way the guideline mentions a specific number, Phil? CapnZapp (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Five years is way too soon to be going down this rabbit hole again. Cabayi (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  And there's something of a lesson in the fact that Technical 13, who instigated that particular unnecessary clusterfuck, ended up blocked for something way way worse than a long talk page: sockpuppetry. EEng 18:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If we disregard the comments that basically amount to "let's not have this discussion" without providing any substantial arguments as to why not, it seems there is no consensus (on agreeing on a particular number). The larger discussion is in the section below, so I'm holding off further comment here in the meanwhile. CapnZapp (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Over the years I've seen talk page archiving used to censor discussions. If it were up to me, it would just be 25 minthreads wiki-wide. EllenCT (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days with no further discussion. Please see #Rule of thumb below. CapnZapp (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that with recent changes, the language used As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or... no longer applies to user talk pages, only article talk pages. I suggest further discussion is taken to a new talk page section for clarity. CapnZapp (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Rule of thumb

What does "rule of thumb" mean?

Specifically, does it mean a) that we can point to WP:TALKCOND to ask editors with user talk pages in far excess of (currently) 75K to trim/archive their pages? or does it mean b) that we can't do that

If b) then what is the purpose of having a "rule of thumb"? As opposed to having a well-defined policy or guideline on one hand, or having no numerical target at all on the other?

If a) then why not have the number specified be the actual target? (Much like, say, the limit of words in a tv episode, where if a summary is even 401 words it means at least some editors will put up a cleanup template) My question is: why say 75K if we allow twice as much? Why not then have the guideline say 150K? Why have a "rule of thumb" if that only means editors can disagree how much is too much? Three times as much? (225K) Five? (375K) At this point, maybe it's better to drop any numeric target at all; meaning that even if my user talk page is 1M or 10M the community won't enforce trimming? (Editors might ask me to trim it but nothing happens if I won't)

Remember, this wording "rule of thumb" has remained unchanged for years and years. It is also very non-standard in our guidelines, so I think it's about time to question the usefulness of having a numeric target that still doesn't work like all our other numeric targets.

 Note: Unlike the previous talk page section, this one is not about the actual number (whether it should be 75 bytes, 75K or 75M). You can discuss this here.

Your input is welcome. CapnZapp (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• What does "deckchairs on the Titanic" mean? EEng 14:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• If you think that someone may not be aware of this rule of thumb then of course you can point it out once politely, but it is that editor's choice whether to take any action. There is certainly no point in telling someone about it who you know already knows. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  So not binding. Thanks for replying, I did not know "rule of thumb" carried that meaning, but then again, I'm not a native English speaker. CapnZapp (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• @CapnZapp: "Rule of thumb" means that yes, you can point to TALKCOND to ask people to archive their user talk page, but also that they can reply with "no". It's there mostly as a suggested starting point for archiving article talk pages, to provide guidance for when archiving article talk pages is helpful without being overzealous, since like DGG says elsewhere, there's value to keeping closed discussions around for reference. Strictly speaking, user talk pages are a subset of talk pages as a whole, so yes, this suggestion could be considered relevant to them, but it's no more than that. And as Phil says, if they're already aware of the guideline (as EEng, for example, clearly is), there's no point in bringing it up to them, because as a rule of thumb, it's not binding. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  So not binding. Thanks for replying, I did not know "rule of thumb" carried that meaning, but then again, I'm not a native English speaker. CapnZapp (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Rule of Thumb" means "You can't make me" It's merely a phrase that allows assholes to violate rules without consequences. Either it's an enforceable rule or it's meaningless. I would remove it and say something like "Users should archive talk pages when they get too large. If a user is warned for having an unmanageably long user talk page, and refuse to comply with requests to archive it or delete old threads to bring it into compliance, they may be sanctioned with blocks until they comply". If you aren't willing to do that, there is no point in even writing a suggestion. --Jayron32 15:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for replying. It will be interesting to see what, if any, change to the wording we end up with CapnZapp (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  So in your view any guideline is worthless if not accompanied by an iron-fist enforcement mechanism guaranteeing 100% adherence? EEng 16:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Nope. Just this one. If you would like to start a discussion on the wording of another guideline, start the discussion on that guidelines talk page, and we'll see what we can do. Other guidelines may or may not need enforcement because they aren't making pages unusable. This one is, and thus needs more teeth to make it useful.--Jayron32 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Your reasoning makes no sense. It would still be useful even if, despite the lack of the iron fist, it nonetheless prompted 80% or 60% or even 30% of users to keep their pages short. EEng 00:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Users who already keep their page short enough don't need the help. It's only users who, after being told why having a stupidly long page is harmful, respond with "I don't care, I'm not shortening it unless there's a rule that forces me to." That's who we need a rule for. People who either archive on their own, or who maybe get absent minded, or when you say "hey, can you archive your talk page, its length makes it hard to read" and say "No problem, I'll get right on that!" don't need guidance. They just solve their problems on their own, or understand the importance of being collegial in a collaborative workspace. It is people who adamantly refuse to be useful, even after being told why they are causing problems, who need rules. --Jayron32 20:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  You're enumerating combinations of predicaments and attitudes that may apply to various species of editors, but that doesn't exclude their being yet another species you're simply ignoring i.e. those who, without guidance, won't understand that archiving is often desirable, but if there is guidance, will understand and do it, all other things being equal. And that can be true even without an enforcement mechanism. So it's just not true that unless user can be sanctioned with blocks until they comply then there is no point in even writing a suggestion. EEng 22:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Rather than asking random people on the internet, you'll get better, more reliable information from this online encyclopedia that anyone can edit called Wikipedia. Rule of thumb: The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. It refers to an easily learned and easily applied procedure or standard, based on practical experience rather than theory. This usage of the phrase can be traced back to the seventeenth century and has been associated with various trades where quantities were measured by comparison to the width or length of a thumb. As to why we have a rule of thumb and not a specified number, see the fifth pillar ("no firm rules"). Levivich (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Insinuating I'm asking "random people on the internet" is just ridiculous. If you don't believe this is the proper place to have this discussion, feel free to suggest a more appropriate venue. Please don't link to the general encyclopedia; this issue is about Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines, and regular article space don't apply. Please don't use a generic argument like "no firm rules" like a blunt instrument - we have quite specific limits in several areas, and you need to argue why this can't be one of them. CapnZapp (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Also see the "folk etymology" section of rule of thumb which, despite being more-or-less debunked, is widely enough believed to cause the phrase to be very offensive to some people. Maybe we can find a different phrase to use that doesn't lead to that reaction. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

My priority is using a phrase that makes it clear what the number (currently 75K) signifies. I can't think of another guideline mentioning a number but then assigning zero relevance to it, at least without giving further context. Can you? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not "zero relevance", and WP:IAR has already been brought to your attention. Once you've grasped rule of thumb I suggest you contemplate wikt:tone-deaf (sense 4). EEng 15:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Your attempts to derail or belittle this discussion only paints you as a fool, EEng. Since me and other editors have actual issues with the current wording of the guideline, please don't come running with "ignore all rules". As other editors have already understood, our issue is not a failure to grasp rule of thumb, but to question why we're using language that not only does not provide any guidance in a guideline, but actually obscures that behind language nobody can agree what it means. CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Examples

Notice that today's FA – Zoo TV Tour – is 138K. The other day we had The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari at 127K. The pages are just about a single topic and their talk pages should likewise be limited to discussion of that topic. A user talk page, however, may cover any number of topics because users can and do edit numerous different subjects. My own talk page is about 400K and that's because it covers divers topics, from article number 5 million to article 6 million and a fair few in between. I chip away at it from time to time but it's a laborious process because there is no standard mechanism. Having had to develop my own filing system, I'm now inclined to keep my own counsel on how to proceed. As editors are likely to be the most active readers of their own talk pages, they need no prompting from others nor an arbitrary guideline. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

But... but... unless there's a bright-line rule, and an iron-fist enforcement mechanism, editors will be adrift, without guidance or compass, and chaos will reign! EEng 23:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

My reflection at this point in time is that this discussion attracts comments from editors whose own talk pages are far larger than 75K, and that they are opposed to regulating user talk page size. CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Man, you're quick! EEng 21:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

My talk page is about 25 K long (thanks to Jimmy Wales pushing it over that number yesterday) and it will, depending how many people want to talk to me there, probably grow to about twice that size before I archive it - still well within the current rule of thumb. That is big enough for my needs, but I understand that there are editors who get involved in many more user talk page discussions than I do so may need to have a much larger talk page. There are two conflicting forces at work here: the need of users on slow or unreliable connections (such as mobile in some places) to access a small talk page, and the need to avoid archiving discussions where someone might comment further. In the case of prolific editors these forces may come into conflict, so the "owner" of the talk page needs to make a judgement, which is helped by gentle advice rather than strict enforcement. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

As for me, I understand the need to be reasonable; I do not understand the need to be uniform. I am halfway to bringing it back to reasonable, as I have done periodically, but it will still be about 400 K. I consider that the right size for what I want to do, and as has been explained by others, it should not make difficulty on any current computer or tablet. phones, not yet, but I'm working on it.

As for the general question, the first step for bring things uptodate is to change the 75kB to 150kB. regardless of what is decided otherwise, that's the minimum needed change) DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm with DGG, including the need to archive more from my own talk page. But since we are increasing the amount of stuff with longer talkpage newsletters, and the technology is improving whilst data contracts are generally getting cheaper, I suggest a rule of thumb of 10kb per year of this millennia. That puts it on 200kb now and automatically increases it to 300kb over the next decade. The advantage of such a rule of thumb is that it won't date as badly. ϢereSpielChequers 16:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Use Template:Do_not_archive_until?

Sorry if this has already come up, the discussion itself is too long to be sure I've read it carefully, but DGG can you just tag the threads you want to retain with a do not archive template, then set the page to automatically archive anything older than 30 days? Apologies if this is butting in unhelpfully. --valereee (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not DGG, but the answer is yes. For an example, see the wikitext of Talk:Latino (demonym) #Argumentative sock blocked where the {{DNAU|730d}} shortcut is used inside the post. The instructions at Template:Do not archive until/doc give more detail. --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not DGG either, but please note he was asked to clean up his talk page already two years ago. It is clear that this guideline is trying to both eat and have the cake. Either rephrase it to give the community the mandate to make users clean up their mess, or rephrase it to make it clear the community allows unlimited user talkies. CapnZapp (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary so far

It's been a couple of days with no new discussion. My conservative summary is that there is a clear opposition to having a binding guideline, leaving it up to each user. In other words, that a significant part of the community is okay with user talk pages of any length.

Since there is also a significant part of the community that feels this is not made clear by the current phrasing (including me), I believe the best course of action to progress the issue is to make a BOLD edit to attempt to rectify this. Feel free to give your input on the impending edit. CapnZapp (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)  Done CapnZapp (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to off-topic discussions guideline

This page contains our guidance on collapsing off-topic talk page discussion, part of which currently reads These templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. I propose that it be changed to These templates should not be added or removed by involved parties to end or restore prominence to a discussion over the objections of other editors. The rationale is that it is best to have uninvolved editors judging whether or not a discussion is off-topic, and that this should apply both ways. Just as an editor who doesn't like a thread isn't allowed to curtail it by collapsing it over others' objections, an editor who insists on perpetuating a discussion everyone else agrees is off-topic should not be allowed to keep it prominent by un-collapsing it. I think this largely reflects current de-facto practice. Note that this guideline does allow editors to continue commenting in a collapsed thread if they want, and this proposal will not change that. Sdkb (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer.^{Courtesy ping EEng} Sdkb (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, since you made a bold edit, and User:EEng reverted you, and you brought up the issue her on talk, the next step is for him to explain his reasons why. If he doesn't, and no-one else objects, feel free to simply reinstate your changes. It's too early for the support/oppose game. CapnZapp (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

As it stands, the guideline favors continued discussion and discourages peremptory cutoff. You've put cutting off on the same footing as continuing. As it stands, the guideline favors continued discussion and discourages peremptory cutoff. Your change puts cutting off on the same footing as continuing. Adding a followup comment to a collapsed thread is nice, but that doesn't change the fact that the collapsed thread is still nominally closed, and discussion is cut off for all practical purposes. EEng 13:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would we want to favour continuation of an off-topic discussion? --RexxS (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Like it says later in the guideline's paragraph Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution – the question often becomes clear only with continued discussion. EEng 13:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, and I've been t-banned for "continued discussion" and reprimanded for it despite the BRD restriction. I always the "D" in BRD was DELETE because editors have been discouraged from discussing issues on TP; the latter of which may have been a determination born of inadvertent bias, or so it seems. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: I agree that we should err on the side of uncollapsing when it's borderline or unclear whether something is off-topic, and I'm fine retaining the sentence from later in the paragraph in the guideline. I'd like to have my addition because I think the decision on where that line is is better made by uninvolved editors. I agree with RexxS that in situations where everyone else recognizes the line has been crossed and a conversation is off-topic, it's best that involved editors don't revert them to uncollapse the thread. Sdkb (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Any examples where that's been a problem? EEng 23:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: There was something tangentially related which prompted me to propose this, but I forget exactly what and can't be bothered to find it again now. It's not a hard situation to imagine, though, is it? I'm sure it comes up every so often. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

In almost every discussion, only editors who are "involved" are aware of the discussion. Also, it's common for people to collapse their own comments. This rule might not be a good one. Maybe we need something more like "Don't edit war over collapsing off-topic stuff"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: There are different levels of "involved"; the sense I interpret it to mean here is an editor who has made one of the comments others are trying to collapse or an editor who has directly argued against one of the points in a comment that may be collapsed. And I think there is a place for this policy to exist in some form — the community needs to have the authority to basically clerk itself. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 12:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

So maybe "Don't edit war over collapsing off-topic stuff, especially if the content is about you". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: "Don't edit war" is basically the message in the proposal, but I think it's better to spell it out a bit, since just saying "don't edit war" gives a first-mover advantage. I'm not sure how to gauge consensus here; would there be objection to me trying to add it again to see if it sticks? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe not? If I collapse your comment, and you revert me, and I revert your reversion, then it's me that's starting the edit war, right? I think your reversion should be understood as being in the style of WP:BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: True. Circling back to your earlier point about editors collapsing their own comments, I think that's mostly covered by "over the objections of other editors" in the proposal. "Don't do things over the objection of other editors" is basically the same message as "don't edit war". Are there any specific changes you'd want made to or language you'd prefer for the sentence? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 13:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe These templates should not be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors? Or "Don't edit war over collapsing or hiding comments"? Specifying a default rule, e.g., "In case of a dispute over hiding comments that you can't resolve through discussion, it's usually better to err on the side of leaving comments visible", might help. But it might be unnecessary, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'd be okay with These templates should not be used to end or restore prominence to a discussion over the objections of other editors. Would that address your concerns? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sdkb, thank you (very much) for the pings. Can you explain how one uses a template such as {{collapse top}} to "restore prominence" to a discussion? That sounds a bit like using scissors to make your hair longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It would be through removing that template. (and I'm happy to ping or not ping, just lmk your preference) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You may freely ping me whenever you want my attention, including if you pinged me before and I haven't answered your question after a couple of days.

So "use this to restore prominence" actually means "not-use this to restore prominence". This is not the right way to write that.

Is the key point that if you collapse my comments, then you don't want me to un-collapse them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Well, the way I wrote it at the top was (italics added) These templates should not be added or removed by involved parties to end or restore prominence to a discussion over the objections of other editors. And the idea isn't that it's never okay to uncollapse comments (I agree with you that in borderline cases, uncollapsing should be the default), but rather that the community should be able to clerk itself when needed. That's the "over the objections of other editors" at the end. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Which takes us back to "Don't edit war". Do we need to re-state the normal rule in this context? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Telling editors to include DATE AND TIME in {unsigned}

I claim the guideline should read

Attributing unsigned comments: If a comment is unsigned you can find out, from the page history, who posted it and append attribution to it, typically using {{subst:Unsigned}}: {{subst:Unsigned|USER NAME OR IP}}.

Another editor wants it to read

Attributing unsigned comments: If a comment is unsigned you can find out, from the page history, who posted it and append attribution to it, typically using {{subst:Unsigned}}: {{subst:Unsigned|USER NAME OR IP|DATE AND TIME}}.

I challenged this editor to exhibit a recent example of anyone including the date and time (much less in the rigid UTC format that allows it to be adjusted properly for each editor's time zone when the page is displayed) [2] [3] but so far that challenge has gone unmet. Like the cat that ate some cheese and stood outside the mouse hole, I wait with baited breath. EEng 03:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Since there's a bot that is set to do this as a task (expand out the unsigned template to add the D&T), I see no point in forcing that on the user adding it. If the user adding the the unsigned template wants to add it, sure, let them, but by no means is it required, knowing we have automation in place for this. Its similar to the reference archival bot we have. --Masem (t) 03:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• EEng, you are being misleading here. The implication of your post is that "another editor" wants to add text that was not there previously, and you are objecting to that addition - your selection of diffs also suggests this. The truth is that the text concerned - i.e. |<var>DATE AND TIME</var> - was already there, and is long-standing. It can be traced back ten years to this series of edits made by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs); and even that, minus the <var>...</var> tags, goes back even further, to this edit in 2007. You removed it, I reverted you, and then you removed it a second and indeed third time, both being reverted by RexxS (talk · contribs). Diffs: your initial removal; my revert; your second removal; RexxS's first revert; your third removal; and RexxS's second revert. Your claim of "It's not edit warring to unrevert once (or even twice) with clear reasoning" in the fifth of those diffs is not supported by WP:EW, much less by WP:BRD.

I don't see your confusion regarding UTC format: these are easily obtained from the top of the diff, or from the page history - simply copypaste the relevant text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• There's nothing misleading. You think it should be one way, I think it should be another way. And we have a 3RR rule for a reason.
• The confusion re UTC is yours. The timestamp from a diff or page history is the time in your timezone. If that's pasted into {unsigned} it will be displayed, unchanged, to all editors regardless of what timezone they're in, unlike properly formatted UTC timestamps which are modified automatically to provide, for each individual editor, a consistent timeline of posts, each with its timestamp adjusted for his or her timezone. By inserting into that timeline a static timestamp tuned to your random timezone, you make a complete mess of that timeline; better to have no timestamp at all.

Any progress on finding even one recent example of someone using the timestamp parameter? EEng 12:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be asking you for evidence of one recent example of someone adding the template without using the timestamp parameter. --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I invariably attribute unsigned edits using {{unsigned2}} because that is set up to allow a copy from the history. I do this several times a day, on average, and always include the timestamp. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

EEng I use the {{xsign}} template (my time is set to UTC): Examples –xeno^talk 17:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

xeno - OK, but what would happen if your time wasn't set to UTC? And how can any normal editor (read: not you or me or others with the technical understanding to be participating in this discussion) be expected to understand such details? EEng 18:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Unable to wok out a time in UTC

-EEng

Anyone who wasn't able to wok out a time in UTC is probably uninterested in adding {unsigned}. On the other hand, folks won't learn how to use {unsigned} unless they have some guidance. That's why we have this guideline. --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

So we have the guideline to explain how to use {unsigned} to people who don't know how to use it, and it's OK that it doesn't actually explain how to use it because people will already know. That makes sense. EEng 00:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• EEng, I see what you did there :D --valereee (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  You mean the baited breath? Yes, I've been waiting a long time to use that. EEng 11:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Totally stealing it next time I see someone write that. --valereee (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I regularly use {{unsigned}} with a date-and-time stamp; in fact I even had {{unsigned2}} created to facilitate that. Here's a recent example; and another; and a third. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  I specified "in the last week" [4] for a reason, and perhaps I should have added, "other than by technogeeks". Where did you copy the timestamp from? EEng 13:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed you did; fortunately I'm not bound by your specification. Try reading the latter template's documentation. And then WP:DROPTHESTICK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  P.S. You wrote, at the top of this benighted section, "I challenged this editor to exhibit a recent example of anyone including the date and time...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  I wrote, in the diff I just linked, "in the last week". But it doesn't matter where I wrote that or whether I repeated it. The point remains that I'm hoping for evidence that normal editors, not technogeeks and template editors, have been able to absorb how to add timestamps properly. EEng 18:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. What "latter template" are you referring to?

• I also regularly use {{subst:unsigned}}, but EEng asked for uses by other people. One such is Graham87 (talk · contribs), for example with this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  I've since found this edit by Marchjuly (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, doesn't count. It needs to be from the seven days immediately preceding the opening of this thread. Obviously you emailed this editor privately and put them up to this. For shame! EEng 23:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  I did no such thing. I resent that accusation and I require you to provide proof that I carried out what I have always held to be inappropriate conduct. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  @EEng: Neither Redrose64 nor anyone else emailed me, but I was pinged above (and once again above). I often come across questions at the Teahouse or on other talk pages that are unsigned. Sometimes I leave them for Sinebot, but do add them if it appears that the bot has missed doing so. I always use {{unsigned}} or {{unsigned IP}} and just follow the template documentation and am pretty sure that I always leave an edit summary linking along the lines of “Added missing signature per WP:TPG#Attributing unsigned comments” when I do. There are lots of examples of me making this type of edit to be found in my contributions history which took place well before this discussion was started and I’ve always made these edits in good faith in accordance with what I thought was be best practice. If that’s not the case, then fine and I’ll follow whatever the best practice is; however, my making the edit referenced above by Redrose64 had nothing to do with this discussion. —- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  <weeps quietly> C'mon, you two have just got to be pulling my leg. You can't possibly have thought I actually meant that. Oh my God! EEng 00:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've always used unsigned with the timestamp ever since I put a copy of the template on my userpage to cut and paste back in 2014. <pedant>The expression is with bated breath, not baited.</pedant> Cabayi (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  No, in context it's definitely baited breath. Maybe Valereee can explain it to you. EEng 13:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  For those playing along at home, it was a play on words that rather elegantly utilized both a common misspelling and a common misconception as the joke. As Cabayi points out, people often misspell 'bated breath' (that is, holding one's breath, generally in anticipation) as 'baited breath,' and all of us pedantic word nerds smirk and think smug thoughts. So EEng took it a step further: by eating cheese, the cat was making his breath smell like something commonly though incorrectly believed to be the ideal bait for mice. Then he stands next to the mousehole breathing, hoping the smell of cheese breath will draw out the mouse. :D --valereee (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly. And then there was the swine who had the pearls cast before him, and ... EEng 21:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, I use it with the date parameter quite often. I'll make two further points: turning timestamps in UTC to local time isn't the default behaviour – it's a gadget; and SineBot only deals with posts that are a minute old and doesn't automatically add timestamps to posts without them that are any older (no bot does that). Graham87 13:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Policies and guidelines are meant to document best practice and the use of a timestamp following each signature is best practice. Not only does it help other editors grasp the timeline of a thread, but quite a few automated processes rely on signatures having a timestamp, so failing to provide one when the opportunity exists is sub-optimal. The original guidance is better than EEng's version. --RexxS (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Good to know... I hate most automated processes on WP... so now I will consider intentionally omitting date and time stamps. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  We hate you too. Automated processes (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• It should say to include the date. This is normal practice, and it's what is done by the bot that fixes unsigned comments (when it can) anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  These instructions aren't for bots. Still waiting for someone to explain how editors are supposed to know how to get the right date to paste in. Xeno (not pick on you, but were were talking about it above)? EEng 20:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  "These instructions aren't for bots" - nobody said they were, but we would expect an edit to be the same whether an editor or a bot made it. As a bot makes the overwhelming majority of these additions, our guidance for editors should mirror how that is accomplished. As for finding the right timestamp, I usually just look in the page history. I know how what timezone I'm in. --RexxS (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, Still waiting for someone to explain how editors are supposed to know how to get the right date to paste in. - what do you think that I wrote in the second paragraph here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  What you wrote in that paragraph is this:

  I don't see your confusion regarding UTC format: these are easily obtained from the top of the diff, or from the page history - simply copypaste the relevant text

  ... which, in fact, doesn't tell an editor how to get the right date to paste in, unless their local timezone happens to be UTC. EEng 05:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  EEng the documentation of xsign gives example usage and notes that UTC time must be used. *shrug* I don’t think this is a huge deal. Just don’t include a time if you don’t want to :) but it is still okay to explain the best way to do it. –xeno^talk 22:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  We're talking about this guideline. This guideline doesn't tell the reader what timestamp is needed or how to get it, and I shudder to think of how complicated such an explanation would have to be, especially since this is primarily a primer for naive editors. As it stands it simply invites a well-meaning editor to paste in what will likely be the wrong timestamp, which is worse than none. But it's all right. Every guideline should have just one half-baked bulletpoint that tells you to do something but leaves you in the dark about how you might do it. EEng 05:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW from a non-techie: after reading this discussion I still have only a fuzzy idea how to put the correct date/time in. I would assume that parameter was included in the instructions because it was important. I'd assume this was one of those templates that wasn't for me. --valereee (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Valereee: It's only difficult because EEng is deliberately making it seem difficult in order to scare people off. This is another of those cases where EEng will try anything to win their argument, such as accusing me of emailing Marchjuly (talk · contribs) totally without foundation, and for which I have not yet received an apology or even a retraction.

  The format is very easy: at the end of your post there is a timestamp, 09:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC); and that is in exactly the format that is suitable for the {{subst:unsigned}} template. You can even omit the (UTC) part and {{subst:unsigned}} will add it in for you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah it's the right format of the timestamp, but you're STILL not explaining where to get the right timestamp – the particular timestamp needed – from. Now you're making it sound like they should get it from their own post or something. The timestamp can only come from a diff or page history, and it needs to be relative to UTC. If you're an editor whose preferences aren't set to UTC, there's no easy and obvious way to do that, and even if there was, the guideline gives no explanation of that at all. But like I said, it's OK – every guideline should have just one half-baked bulletpoint that tells you to do something but leaves you in the dark about how you might do it, as a monument to the blindness of technogeekism. EEng 00:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  See my post of 10:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC) and stop pretending. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'm really beginning to wonder what's going on with you. Your blithe assertion that useable timestamps are easily obtained from the top of the diff, or from the page history - simply copypaste the relevant text WILL NOT WORK unless you happen to have your timezone preference set to UTC. You need to absorb that if you are to participate usefully in this conversation. Really. 20:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, you are overestimating my general level of competence. :D Speaking as someone who is a little fuzzy on the whole subst vs transclude thing, for me, EEng is not making anything seem more difficult than it is. --valereee (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC) ETA: testing — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 15 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC) contribs) March 15 2020 21:38 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6:04 pm, Today (UTC−4) (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 6:06 pm, Today (UTC−4) (UTC)

I give up. WTF am I supposed to put in here to make it look like everyone else's? --valereee (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC) NM, finally got it --valereee (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Valiant effort, Valereee, but (and this is not your fault) you've figured out the timestamp format, but not where to get the correct timestamp itself from. See the interaction with El C two bullets down. EEng 00:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

EEng, oh, you're right...it's still saying today, even though it's now yesterday. It looks like I've signed sometime in the future. Hm. Ok, I give up. And if EENg is right that an incorrect timestamp is worse than no timestamp -- which I tend to agree with -- then we should at minimum be inserting into the instructions that adding the date and time is optional for those who know how to do it. That would be enough to warn me off. :D --valereee (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Having made the mistake of reading all this stuff, my opinion is that EEng is right and nobody showed otherwise. As to the best solution, I wonder if the technical folks can make it automatically convert a date-time to UTC from the user's time zone if the magic "(UTC)" is not included. Zero^talk 12:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  Zero0000 gets it. EEng 00:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• I suppose {{subst:Unsigned|user|~~~~~}} would work — looks like: — Preceding unsigned comment added by El_C (talk • contribs) 21:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC). Sorry, if someone already mentioned that. Myself, I confess to usually just plain forgetting to add a timestamp to {{unsigned}}, but I should really make it a habit. El_C 21:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  No, ~~~~~ inserts the time and date as of the time you added the unsigned template to sign for the person (let's call them Editor X) who didn't sign for themselves, and that's not the time that's needed; if you use it you'll make it look like the original post was made at a much later time, which is way worse than putting no timestamp at all. The time that's needed is the time that Editor X made the post you're signing for them. The complete confusion on this and other points (which is not the fault of those here trying to figure out how to do it using the bizarrely inadequate instructions in the guideline as it stands, but is the fault of the technogeeks gathered here who keep saying the guideline makes perfect sense) proves what a joke the guideline is. EEng 00:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• A guideline does not need to get into the minutiae of template syntax. For details, users can refer to the documentation of {{unsigned}}, which currently states: If this is too difficult to figure out, or you are in a hurry, then leave out the time, and only put in the date. Further improvements can be made to the documentation.—Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'd agree, and since the template documentation says the time stamp is optional and in another place that the date is also optional, why are we defaulting to specifying the use of both of them in this guideline? I would think we'd default to leaving them both off for this guideline. Because speaking as someone who still hasn't figured out how to correctly add them, if I read the guideline as it is right now, I'd probably conclude the use of this template was not for me. Only if I'd bothered to go read the documentation -- which is always a little terrifying -- would I have seen that the tricky part is optional. --valereee (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC) ETA: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 11:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC (UTC) ETA: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 11:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Whoa, did I do it right that time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 11:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: "why are we defaulting to specifying the use of both of them in this guideline?" because we want editors to use both of them as it's best practice, and it makes sense that we should encourage those who are capable of figuring out the date and time to do so.

Your guess that "we'd default to leaving them both off" is a long way off the mark, because the template without both parameters produces this:

• {{subst:unsigned}} → — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

which is no use to anybody. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, by both I mean date and time. I do understand we need to specify that they fill in the username or ip parameter, but that part's easy. --valereee (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

See, RexxS, the negation of "use both" is "do not use both" i.e. "omit at least one"; it's not "omit both". See DeMorgan's law. EEng 20:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Please don't try to patronise me. Your assertion that "I would think we'd default to leaving them both off for this guideline." is just plain wrong. See Law of holes. --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You're telling Valereee that her statement of what her own thinking is is wrong? Wow. EEng 05:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbor-treeish break

Would:

Attributing unsigned comments: If a comment is unsigned you can find out, from the page history, who posted it and append attribution to it, typically using {{subst:Unsigned}}: {{subst:Unsigned|USER NAME OR IP}} or ideally but optionally {{subst:Unsigned|USER NAME OR IP|DATE AND TIME}}.

...work for everyone? --valereee (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really, because it still tells suggests that editors do something which they will have no idea how to do (unless they are experienced editors who don't need this guideline at all) and if they do attempt it they will almost certainly do it wrong (which, as you've so kindly agreed, is worse than nothing). I'd suggest:

Attributing unsigned comments: If a comment is unsigned you can find out, from the page history, who posted it and append attribution to it: {{subst:Unsigned|USER NAME OR IP}}. (Ideally but optionally a timestamp will be added as well – see the template documentation.)

EEng 15:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"Attributing unsigned comments: If a comment is unsigned you can find out, from the page history, who posted it and append attribution to it, typically using {{subst:Unsigned}}: {{subst:unsigned|USER NAME OR IP|DATE AND TIME}}." is better. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, you did see that it took me a dozen attempts in order to figure out how to insert the date/time stamp, and that there are arguments that an incorrect timestamp is worse than none? --valereee (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I'd agree that would be the ideal, but let's see if we can find a compromise position. :) --valereee (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

My proposed text above is a compromise. Originally I had proposed dropping mention of the timestamp entirely. EEng 20:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Not everybody is as inept has the same difficulties as you, and the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

@EEng: No interest in your "compromise" that worsens the guidance. There are far too many other editors disagreeing with you, and you don't seem to be able to admit when you're wrong. Drop the stick before patience wears thin with your tendentious commentary here. --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, wow. --valereee (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(Taking a break, here. Just want to calm myself down. I'm sure in the morning this is going to look less FUCKING UPSETTING.) --valereee (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Valereee. The singular of "admin who barely squeaked through RfA" is not "editor whose opinion anyone pays attention to". EEng 05:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Except I'm not wrong, and as an admin you should know that which argument prevails depends on the strength of the reasoning, not a pile-on by people who demonstrably don't understand even the technical issue (before we even reach the question of what the guideline should say). As for before patience wears thin – and when patience wears thin, then ... what? Go on, tell us. Really, tell us! I'd love to see you draw wider attention to this thread. EEng 05:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

But, you are wrong, no matter how much you pretend otherwise. We give the best guidance we can, and WP:PAG backs my view that you have no consensus to change an established guideline. What's next for you is me filing a complaint at WP:AN, listing your long history of edit-warring and tendentious editing over these sort of guidelines, and requesting that you be topic banned from them. If you think your behaviour here is beyond criticism, you have another thing coming. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Another think because: see smug pedant above.--valereee (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't kick him when he's down, Valereee. EEng 21:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no excuse. Other than being cooped up for days, but we've all got that excuse.--valereee (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• But, you are wrong, no matter how much you pretend otherwise – Right back at ya', Rex. The difference being, of course, that (as seen below) now that the technical issue has been competently ventilated nobody – nobody – agrees with you.
• If you think your behaviour here is beyond criticism – I fear no scrutiny. Watch out for that boomerang!

EEng 21:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I support either of Valeree's or EEng's proposals. Zero^talk 02:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Is this so difficult?

Let's take an example. At Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 13 #WP:REDACT there's a single post in a section. Let's pretend it was unsigned and we wanted to add the {{unsigned}} template:

1. Looking at the surrounding posts, we would expect to find it in the page history somewhere between 16 September and 1 November 2019.
2. So we look at the page history filtered to date 1 November 2019.
3. This step is easier if you have navigation popups and can hover, but you now scan the entries to find the one about WP:REDACT (you can actually spot it from the edit summary in this case).
4. It turns out to be by a user called "Epinoia" and I see the timestamp as "01:16, 27 September 2019". You may see the timestamp differently. If you have no timezone set or are not logged in, you'll see it in UTC so you can skip the next step and use it directly.
5. I know that my timezone in September 2019 was UTC+1. So if UTC + 1 = 01:16 then I know that UTC = 00:16. Not rocket science.
6. I could now add the correct {{subst:unsigned|Epinoia|00:16, 27 September 2019}}

You can check by comparing the result of that template with the actual timestamp in the archive that it would produce the correct result, i.e. Epinoia (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC), and that those steps will always give you the result you need. --RexxS (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has claimed that it can't be done. The lesson that you just taught, despite your intention, is that the average editor will not go through your 6 steps in order to achieve something that is of little benefit to themselves. One look and they will decide to skip adding the template altogether. Zero^talk 02:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps that is what happens with the "average editor", but neither you nor I have any evidence either way to prove or disprove that negative.

On the other hand, most editors spend a lot of time on Wikipedia doing something that is of little benefit to themselves, and we do have multiple examples of editors correctly adding the template using that sort of technique. Not one of them has suggested that they find it difficult. Perhaps you should actually try it before you start making unfounded criticisms of my teaching. --RexxS (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Change little benefit to themselves to simply little benefit and the point is well made. EEng 05:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Only a small fraction of accounts set a local timezone. Adding a lengthy explanation here, especially since we have no evidence that this is causing disputes in the 'real wiki world', is WP:CREEPy.

Also, sometimes only the name is missing, in which case adding another copy of the timestamp would be wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, isn't it also true that only a small fraction of accounts edit, at all, or with any regularity, and concomitantly, only a small fraction of accounts set any preferences at all? Do we know how many active editors (>X edits in the last 30 days, however defined) set their local timezone? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What we can certainly say is that in the entire history of Wikipedia, only 17,531 people have switched "CommentsInLocalTime" on. (Raw numbers are a bit misleading, as someone active enough to bother switching gadgets on will be disproportionately active.) ‑ Iridescent 17:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, that's not the gadget I was thinking of. Correct me if I'm wrong, CommentsInLocalTime gadget changes the time on talk pages. I'm talking about the time code in histories, which is set by: Preferences→Appearance→Time offset. (I'm not sure if "fill in from browser" is the default, or UTC is the default.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The default is server time. Which on English Wikipedia is UTC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Rexxs, you insist on ignoring that the current guideline merely says

If a comment is unsigned you can find out, from the page history, who posted it and append attribution to it, typically using {{subst:Unsigned}}: {{subst:unsigned|USER NAME OR IP|DATE AND TIME}}"

thus giving no clue to your step 5. This is what this entire discussion has been about. For anything about DATE AND TIME to remain, it would have to be expanded to explain the UTC fiddling, and I challenge you to show us what that expansion would look like (including, I guess, telling an average editor how to figure out what their timezone offset was on an arbitrary date in the past). Absent such a demonstration (which I predict – as has WhatamIdoing – would be way CREEPy) the meaningless and confusing reference to DATE AND TIME needs to be removed, and I offer again:

If a comment is unsigned you can find out, from the page history, who posted it and append attribution to it: {{subst:Unsigned|USER NAME OR IP}}. (Ideally but optionally a timestamp will be added as well – see the template documentation.)

EEng 05:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

(EEng pointed me to here). At the very least, if it tells users to include the timestamp, it should also clearly state that the timestamp should be in UTC and provide easy instructions for getting a timestamp in UTC rather than in one's preferred timezone. The current guidance is very likely to lead to incorrect timestamps, worse than none because they're harder to spot and fix. Note that the unsigned template documentation also does not provide easy instructions for getting a timestamp in UTC; its instructions require that you know what your preference offset is, that you know which direction that you are offset from UTC, and that you do some mental arithmetic to do the conversion, and beyond that are not clearly spelled out. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I support EEng's proposal. Incidentally, I suspect that many UK editors don't know what "UTC" is since they use "GMT". Maybe the way forward is to start an RfC. Then we should harass the techies to make a version of {{unsigned}} that takes the timestamp in the editor's timezone (per their prefs, not per their location). Then people can just copy the time-date they see in the article history. Zero^talk 05:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Such a template already exists, Template:Xsign, which helps with this sort of thing quite a bit though even then it is kind of a PITA. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure? Template:Xsign says "Preferences must be set to display time in UTC." which suggests that it cannot be used for time-zone conversion. Zero^talk 06:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible for template behavior to depend on your preferences. The necessary information isn't provided to them by Wikimedia. It would be possible to make a template that takes your time offset as a second argument, but then you'd have to know the offset (and remember that it changes during daylight savings time, and remember which way it changes), and even then I don't know what happens when you're viewing histories from older dates when daylight savings was different from the time of viewing. The easiest way I know of to get the UTC for a page history directly is to view the history in an incognito window. But that's still kind of a PITA and also makes editing-not-logged-in more likely. (Also, I think it's not true that Brits use GMT/UST; I imagine that like most of the rest of us they use a time preference that varies between GMT and BST according to the season. But if I'm mistaken on that, please correct.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct about GMT/BST. The point is that telling them to use UTC might produce only "huh?". Zero^talk 08:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, correct-ish. BST is almost certainly going to be abolished in 2021, when the EU abolishes daylight saving time; although the UK is no longer bound to follow, it's very unlikely they'll hang onto it since it would mean Northern and Southern Ireland being in different timezones which would cause chaos. ‑ Iridescent 15:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops, has been too long since I've used that template. The workflow I used was to open the history page logged out (using a private tab) and then copy the history entry from there, which is definitely still easier than RexxS "six steps". Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Changing to unsnarky section head

No, RexxS, it's not difficult. It is a bit complicated, as we can see from the need for six steps to provide a tutorial, so it's something those who are as inept as I will have to take a few minutes to learn. Not everyone will want to do that, and if we imply that both the username and the timestamp are required by instructing them to include both, many may just not bother. Or they may make an assumption about how to fill in the timestamp and get it wrong, which everyone seems to agree is worse than not including the time at all. Interestingly your tutorial isn't even touched on at the template documentation; it seems to assume no one is as inept as I. Maybe we should add it there? --valereee (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think Rexx’s six steps proves the difficulty. Six is too many steps. And when your local time zone is UTC +1, it’s easy to remember that. Mine changes throughout the year because of daylight savings time. I have to look up my UTC offset every time. This entire debate breaks down into two categories of editors: for those that use the UTC time, it’s easy to copy and paste the time code. For those that do not, it’s a pain in the ass to convert from local time to UTC time. There’s a bot that will automatically add the time code? Great, that’s one less step for a human being, one less thing we need to ask of our precious human volunteers. The guidance should suggest just using the name without the time stamp. It’s not "best practice" to add the time stamp, if for no other reason than that it adds one or more steps for humans to do, and humans can get the conversion wrong. It’s best practice to let the computer do it. We create computers specifically so that they can preform tasks that we do not have to do. We don’t write bots so that humans can mimic them. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  What Levivich said. I have the luxury of living in the UTC time zone, and even I regularly skip over cut-and-pasting the timestamp because it's just not worth the hassle. What seems to be being missed in all the back-and-forth above is that in the overwhelming majority of cases the timestamp does not matter as we only need to know that User:Alice made the comment in question; it only even potentially becomes an issue in the very rare circumstances when we need to know whether User:Alice's comment was made before or after the comment by User:Bob, and if that ever does become an issue we can always add the timestamp retrospectively. It's a waste of time ordering everyone to follow a relatively convoluted and time-consuming procedure every time, just for a relatively slight benefit in a handful of hypothetical cases. ‑ Iridescent 15:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  in the overwhelming majority of cases the timestamp does not matter as we only need to know that User:Alice made the comment in question – Absolutely -- that was my original point [5][6] way back at the beginning. EEng 15:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I accept your correction. As for the question under contention, I would never go through conversion steps every time I encounter an unsigned comment — I get way too many of these on my talk page alone (I've gotten five yesterday, for example — I didn't even bother unsigned-ing all of them, for that matter). Anyway, unless there's a one-step automated process to facilitate this, I will continue to leave the unsigned template I add undated. And I'm not even committing to adding it each and every time — the way I see it, there's nothing compelling me, the volunteer, to do so. El_C 15:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Now that I'm recalling, every time I tried to add the unsigned template yesterday, Sinebot edit-conflicted me. And when I gave up on adding it, Sinebot was, of course, AWOL. C'est la vie! El_C 15:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be "six steps". I can just as easily give the instructions in one step:

• "Find the post in the page history and copy the username and timestamp into the template, remembering to compensate for your timezone if you have one set."

Despite all of the hand-wringing, none of this is difficult to do. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not one step, that's one sentence outlining multiple steps: (1) open history in 2nd browser window; (2) find time stamp; (3) open 3rd browser window; (4) look up your UTC offset; (5) calculate UTC timestamp based on your offset; (6) fill out template; (7) publish. Steps #2, #4, and #5 are three unnecessary opportunities for human error. There is no reason that these steps should be done by people instead of bots, and no reason to require or suggest that humans do this instead of bots. The guideline should be updated with language to this effect: you can add a timestamp if you want to, but if you do, it has to be in UTC, and if you don't, a bot will do it for you. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Speaking for myself, I would not bother following this somewhat involved approach due to the sheer volume of unsigned comments I encounter. As mentioned above, the prospect of adding just the undated unsigned template —often edit-conflicting with Sinebot— is annoying enough. El_C 17:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I never bother with the timestamp when I used Unsigned templates. First off, this six step process isn't described in the documentation. Secondly, even it was, it is an absurd amount of work for a non-essential template that people add of their own free will. Making the process for listing, say, an AfD, a bit complex. Sure. But this case? No way it's reasonable to ask people just wanting to help out with a bit of cleanup to do a six-step process. CapnZapp (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

WTF do people need to look up their UTC offset? I don't think I've never not known my UTC offset since I was maybe 14 or younger, no matter if I'm in a place with or without DST. I personally feel unsigned is a dumb template. xsign or unsigned2 makes things easier. Why copy twice or fiddle around with the order when you can just copy once? I personally keep edit history time stamps in UTC partly for this reason, but even if you do choose local time, it still seems easier to fiddle around with the date without messing around with the order.

P.S. To be clear, I don't sign comments much, but when I do I always add the date. Since my edit history is in UTC, all it really means is I copy a slightly longer thing and then replace the space with a |. I have been using unsigned2 regardless of whether they were accounts or IPs but now that I know about xsign I will still use it.

I appreciate it's a bit more work if your edit history is not in UTC, but I think people are overestimating how much extra work it is for the plenty of people who do use UTC in their edit histories. If you don't bother to copy and paste the user name, then it is a bit more work but I find it risky to go by memory. It's easy to get the capitalisation wrong. And as for IPs.....

I still find copy and pasting on mobile annoying but frankly it just means I don't generally add unsigned templates on mobile. In a number of cases I find the date is more important than the username or IP, especially when people correctly indent which while rare for those who don't sign can happen with responses in the same thread.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The date and time parameter is optional.

I've added this line. Does that resolve things? –xeno^talk 18:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's definitely an improvement (thank you), but I also think that the reader should be advised that if they add date and time, it must be in UTC. I would maybe add, "..., and if used, must be in UTC." (with the link). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think if there's going to be a link it should be to the template documentation where (we can only hope, in some halcyon future) RexxS's steps will be clearly explained. And once you're doing that, it still seems to me that my "ideally but optionally" language, with link to template documentation, is what we want. EEng 18:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I support the 'ideally but optionally' language. --valereee (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Everyone should listen to the ever-wise Valereee, because even with saying "must be in UTC" that still doesn't tell the reader what time it is they're adding – way back in this thread El C thought that the timestamp was supposed to be the time the {unsigned} template was added, not the time of the original post it's being added to. So, again, why not link to the template documentation where (we can only hope, in some halcyon future) RexxS's steps will be clearly explained? And thus we circle back to the "ideally but optionally" language, with link to template documentation. EEng 18:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: I would have thought that the documentation page for Template:Unsigned was the best place for elaborating further, although I don't think that addition hurts. However, I do think that adding something along the lines of "... more information on using {{unsigned}} can be found at Template:Unsigned/doc" would be beneficial. That would reduce the instruction bloat in these guidelines and allow the template documentation to deal with the detail. --RexxS (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree linking to the template doc is helpful. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That documentation is profoundly unhelpful since it only tells you what to do, not how to do it. (And that's even dodging the greater issue: why you need to do it, as in you really don't) CapnZapp (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT – you'd be doing everyone who wants to use the documentation a favour. --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand me. We're not discussing improvements to Template:Unsigned. If we were we would have had this discussion at Template Talk:Unsigned. CapnZapp (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I understand your complaining perfectly. What you fail to understand is that details of how to use Template:Unsigned belong on the Template:Unsigned/doc page. And that's exactly what we're discussing. Feel free to copy it to the proper location. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You still don't understand. My comment was a response to the "linking to the template doc is helpful" comment. More generally: why spend energy on explaining to users how to do a task when most users are much better served by "don't bother, leave it to the bots"? CapnZapp (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You're quite wrong. I understand exactly what your comment was a response to. You'll find that linking to a template's documentation is far better than trying to re-explain details on every page where the template is mentioned. Placing all of the details of documentation in a central location allows maintenance in a single place and keeps advice consistent. That's one reason why we have hyperlinks. The template exists, and is available for editors to use in the rare cases that the bot does not fix the missing sig, and it would be irresponsible not to give instructions to those editors who want to use the template. We don't have to arrange our guidance for the majority of editors who will never use the template, but for the much smaller number who wish to. --RexxS (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The bullet point currently reads:

• Attributing unsigned comments: If a comment is unsigned you can find out, from the page history, who posted it and append attribution to it, typically using {{subst:Unsigned}}: {{subst:Unsigned|USER NAME OR IP|DATE AND TIME}}. The date and time parameter is optional.

...and I'm entire fine with that, no need for additional links directly to any documentation. If anything, make it more clear that if you're absolutely compelled to replicate the work of a bot, here's a link for you to follow to learn more. In no circumstance have I suggested we should "re-explain details on every page". Stop setting up straw men, please. CapnZapp (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't write guidance just to please one editor. Other editors agree with me that having a link to the template documentation would be helpful, and I'll be adding that link unless more than your lone voice disagrees. What you clearly haven't grasped is that SineBot sometimes fails to recognise the unsigned post, and it will never add a signature to it. At that point, the only way for the post to have a signature is through an editor adding it manually. There is no strawman other than your "if you're absolutely compelled to replicate the work of a bot". Anybody using Template:Unsigned is performing work that the bot has not done, and will never do. You meant to write "if you're going to add a signature that SineBot failed to do ...". --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"We don't write guidance just to please one editor." Now you're just obnoxious. Secondly, what happened to your prior bluster? You don't get to pretend you didn't insult me or set up straw men. Your baseless claims of my incompetence merely makes you look like a fool. Thirdly, you keep trying to avoid seeing my point: don't make the documentation look as if it recommends users to manually add signatures! As you yourself say, it's a last resort and should be treated that way. In fact, do go ahead and write something to the effect of "if you're going to add a signature that SineBot failed to do ..." since that's actually excellent phrasing. CapnZapp (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

← Do feel free to tweak further. –xeno^talk 19:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Cont'd

Have a look over here if you want. CapnZapp (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Article talk page size

This is a comment, not a request for change:

Currently (see above for previous discussion) our guideline offers the following:

"Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions – see Help:Archiving a talk page."

I do think the guideline offered is obsolete. If a talk page is very active, it has (automatic) archival set up already. If it isn't, the number and age of inactive discussions/sections have a much larger impact than checking the size against some number. And we really should recommend automated archival: manual archiving needs to be repeated, can easily be set up in a manner not compatible with later auto-archival and is generally more trouble than it's worth imho.

If an (article) talk page feels "too large", an editor might ask for and set up automated archival, but I don't think that happens already at 75 KB. And even if it feels "too large", if it isn't growing, it's usually such a low-impact problem that most editors simply leave it be anyway. Our guideline would probably be better off if it reflected this common sense. CapnZapp (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk page size

This is a comment, not a request for change:

Currently (see above for previous discussion) our guideline offers the following:

"The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion."

I personally don't see how this gels with the much more important "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier."

1. There are user talk pages that are a nightmare to navigate. Fact.
2. Some of these users have failed to clean up their user talk pages even after repeated friendly reminders over years. Fact.

I realize this particular guideline isn't strictly required to make these users clean up their act, and I realize the overall impact on Wikipedia is minimal ("just don't visit"), so I guess leaving it be is okay.

However, that depends on WP:USERTALKBLOG being an appropriate venue for resolving conspicuous cases, since that's the only place we link to. Since this isn't a "dispute" between two editors, but rather reporting one editor to the greater community, if community discussion at Miscellany for deletion is not a proper venue, we might consider tweaking our language here to not send concerned editors astray. CapnZapp (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Talk:Great Chinese Famine

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Great Chinese Famine#Proposed rollback to April 14 in connection with dispute resolution and proper use of Talk pages. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: add a line in the good practices section advising reading before commenting

It seems like a longstanding unstated norm on Wikipedia that it is good practice to familiarize yourself with a discussion before participating in it. I recently wrote an essay, WP:Read before commenting (WP:READ), to state this explicitly, and I propose that it be integrated into this guideline by adding the following bullet in the "Good practices for talk pages" section directly under the "be concise" bullet:

• Read before commenting: Familiarizing yourself with a discussion before participating makes it easier to build consensus.

What do you all think? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I would add ...and harder to make an idiot of yourself. EEng 18:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Haha no objection to that :) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 to the proposed language and E's addition. Except instead of "Familiarizing yourself with a discussion", I would just write "Reading the discussion". Fewer words, better message. Also it should have a convenient shortcut, like maybe WP:READFIRST. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

+2 but shouldn't think come first? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I added WP:READFIRST as a shortcut. Thanks for the suggestion! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe Levivich's suggestion was for the shortcut to point to the proposed passage of this guideline, not your essay. CapnZapp (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a pity that we have to spell out something so obvious, but experience has shown me that many people comment in discussions without reading them first. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• There seems to be general support here, so I'm going to go ahead and add, and I'll retarget WP:READFIRST to here (sorry I misinterpreted that). I'm not sure how serious EEng's proposal was, but I have no qualms if anyone wants to modify the wording. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  I was absolutely serious (though I suppose we might consider fool instead of idiot). EEng 21:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  If you truly haven't learned the "worth" of EEng's contributions, Sdkb, I suggest browsing the rest of this page... CapnZapp (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I guess the sting is still there, CZapp. EEng 12:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Quite a barrier to entry if the discussion is 100,000 words over 6 months.  :-) North8000 (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: Indeed! I mention WP:SKIM in Wikipedia:Read before commenting#Exceptions. For here, "familiarize" is intentionally a little loose; it's not a "you must read every word". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool.North8000 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO this is good common-sense advice, but much too WP:CREEPy for inclusion in a guideline. Also, there is a lot of potential for unhelpful bickering: "Oh, I didn't notice that earlier comment" – "TPG requires all editors to familiarize themselves with prior discussions before commenting. You violated the guideline!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal. LURK MOAR has long been sage advice online. Online fora belong to the regular contributors and n00bz have a responsibility to catch up. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would lean more toward it being included (with EEng's add-on), because reading before commenting is in fact good guidance, and people failing to do it does in fact waste a lot of community members' time and burn up a lot of inter-editor goodwill. And WP in 2020, as a force in the world not some odd DIY experiment it started out as, needs to spend less time holding hands and instead be more clear about what is problematic, and how/why to not be part of the problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Since at least someone seemed to doubt it, FTR I was indeed absolutely serious about my little addition. "Easier to form consensus" is a nice carrot, but "you might make a fool of yourself" is a better stick (not that it works for everyone, as we all know). EEng 22:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Thursday font change. At 13:30 today, I posted a CSS rule to undo the font change. As late as 17:02, people were still asking how to do it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Guess I'll go ahead and comment: I don't see that this addition is needed and my thoughts on the matter are more so in line with WhatamIdoing's. While I don't strongly oppose the addition, I do strongly oppose the "and harder to make a fool of yourself" piece. That's not the tone we use in our policies and guidelines, and this shouldn't be the start of using such a tone. I find that piece inappropriate, and I would have reverted it by now if I didn't think that EEng would revert me. I'm surprised it's lasted this long in the guideline. I mean, Moxy and RexxS, are you also okay with it? If I felt inclined, I would (as EEng knows) start the dreaded RfC on it. But I'll settle for leaving a post at WP:Village pump (policy) for more opinions. If most others aren't concerned about it, I won't be either. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to stay out of it, but okay. I agree that it's not needed, but several editors have made the case that it would be useful. I know that TPG (and guidelines in general) do get used to bludgeon others sometimes, but I tend to blame the person, not the tool, when its misused. I don't have strong feelings overall, but if pushed (and I was), I think I'd !vote for adding the line (including the 'fool') and being prepared to reverse that if it's shown to be problematical in the future. --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not a big deal.. no strong feelings either way. Not sure it will help as someone who needs to be told this probably shouldn't be here to begin with. However our Community has been getting less and less academic in nature thus perhaps it's warranted as common sense isn't always so common anymore.--Moxy 🍁 20:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that I never stated or implied that the addition in its entirety is a big deal. My previous post mainly focuses on the "and harder to make a fool of yourself" piece. With the ways WP:Competence is required has been weaponized and the many complaints that have been directed at it after being cited by editors in discussions, especially heated ones, we want to point editors to a piece in a guideline (not an essay or supplement page) that has "fool" in it? I don't need a crystal ball to see that editors, especially newbies and other less-experienced editors (who these guidelines are mainly for), will be offended by that piece. And as for "pushed", I wasn't looking to push anyone to comment on this. Editors who watch pages don't always keep up with everything discussed or catch every addition, especially if they have a big watchlist. That applies to me as well. If it was me who was pinged and I didn't want to comment, I wouldn't have. But anyway, I wanted to know the thoughts of two editors in particular and now I do. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Telling people "Hey, here's a way to avoid making a fool of yourself" is no more problematic than telling people not to "bite" other people. (If you like, we could change "make a fool of yourself" to "embarrass yourself", though I don't think that's as memorable.) I don't particularly care whether the entire bullet is present or not, but if it is present I really do think it needs to give the reader a stronger motive than the vague, touchy-feely "easier to build consensus"; avoiding ridicule is a powerful motivator. EEng 21:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the addition. Nobody reads that article anyways, I had never seen it before. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  @SportingFlyer: You might want to read the top of this discussion... The reason you haven't seen the essay before is since I just wrote it the other day. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're recommending Familiarizing yourself with a discussion before participating makes it easier to build consensus. EEng 00:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the addition. Seems like positive, uncontentious, good advice. Saying "reading discussions before commenting on them makes helps you avoid making a fool of yourself" is common sense, the fact that anyone could possibly find it offensive is hilarious to me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I couldn't possibly imagine how someone who fails to read all of (or sufficiently familiarize themselves with) a discussion before commenting and is then pointed to this addition, in what will likely be a very pointed and/or condescending way, and who may already feel embarrassed, could take offense to text essentially rubbing in their (possible) embarrassment by pretty much calling them a fool. There's also the fact that it's common practice that editors don't read all of or much of a discussion before commenting (as seen at WP:ANI, for just one example), with some citing WP:Too long; didn't read in the very discussion. But, yeah, no problem will arise from "and harder to make a fool of yourself." I'm sure those (including me) who cited WP:COMPETENCE to an editor with regard to their editing and meant no offense...but caused it anyway...also thought no problem would arise. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe other can't see it but to me the fool part seems needlessly bitey. The types who jump into discussions without reading won't change after reading a banner, they probably won't even look at the banner. It will only discourage new editors who wouldn't want to risk commenting even after reading everything to prevent "making a fool of themselves". People are already scared of complicated rules of Wikipedia as it is. Strong oppose to adding "and harder to make a fool/idiot of yourself". TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This is really obvious, self-explanatory stuff. Having to spell out the oppose should not have to be done. Maybe the editor that suggested it could instead do with a bit of self-reflection: maybe take some time off Wikipedia, and return fresh, hopefully somewhat less jaded and cynical? CapnZapp (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Saying "read a discussion before participating in it" is not an attack against those who would fail to do so. Adding the additional explanation that doing so "will help you avoid looking stupid" is not one either. It's good faith, common sense advice. The fact that we're preemptively concerned about the feelings of disruptive editors who go out of their way to insert ignorant contentious opinions into discussion they haven't read is comical. If you think you're a victim because we preemptively address disruptive behavior in policy you're likely the problem and not the solution. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "read a discussion before participating in it" isn't offensive. But it's common sense that "and harder to make a fool of yourself" should not be there. And I'm certain that if I started an RfC on this and advertised it well, the vast majority of editors would support removing it. Again, we do not use this tone in any other guideline or policy. The only reason I haven't pressed the issue further is because I'm sure it will eventually be removed and I could then state "told you so" (although I won't). I support it not being there per what I stated above. It certainly has not a thing to do with me being a disruptive editor. And per what I stated, not all editors who jump right into the discussion without reading all or most of it are disruptive. Nor all they fools. Sometimes one doesn't need to read all or most of the discussion before commenting. The heading may say it all, as is the case with RfCs, and the only "familiarizing" needed may be reading a brief summary of the matter if the discussion has it. But then again, the text does state "familiarizing yourself with a discussion" rather "read all or most of the discussion." Also, EEng offered alternative wording to the "fool" wording, and we can go with that. If "fool" stays there for long without any issue, I suppose I should look forward to "fool" being added to more policies and guidelines; we can start with WP:Civil. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)