Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Archive size

WP:TALKCOND states, "archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB". Is this size of the HTML document, Wiki text, prose including all HTML code, or just prose text?--Thinker78 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, I just noticed your revert. I did ask before I made the edit as you can see here and no one replied. Can you explain the rationale of your revert more please? Thanks in advance. --Thinker78 (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's easy to assume everyone is on a highspeed connection but this is a global platform and that just ain't true. Some talk pages are at times graphics intense. In my 10+ years here. this has happened at times in certain science topics. Way back whenever I understood the rule of thumb to be bytes of everything, including imagery. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I was thinking article talk pages where usually there are no images. But user talk pages can indeed have a lot of graphics, more than articles. Thinker78 (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy It looks like the measure is in wikitext, not HTML, according to the Template:Archive request function (not mentioned in the instructions though). I previewed the template in the talk page of Christianity to verify an edit of another editor who was pointing out it was too long. According to the tool Prosesize, the talk page length there is 33kb in wikitext, the same number that the Archive Request template provided. Thinker78 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

If the community is happy I'm happy NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

When a comment has no heading?

I recently noticed that there is a comment on Talk:The Great Ray Charles from 2007, which is not under a heading. I don't see anything under WP:TALKHEADING that indicates what should be done in a case like this. Leave it alone, heading-less? Contact the user and say, "hey, could you make a heading for this comment you made?" In the aforementioned case, the user in question hasn't been active since 2011. Make a heading yourself? And if that last option, what should the heading be? —Matthew - (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

In a similar circumstance I've taken the "make a heading yourself" approach. Since you're the one doing the fix you can be the one who decides what it says (at least that's what I did in my case). - 06:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

go for it, and the guidance is found elsewhere in Talk page guidelines at "section headings"... shortcut to that part is WP:SHOWN NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Should bots be setup to completely blank talk pages when archiving?

I came across this recently at Talk:Ryanair Flight 4978 and it surprised me (so in this case - I changed it). Aside from inconveniently relocating the entire talk history behind an extra click and page load, the perception this may create among new or unseasoned editors might not be helpful. In particular for articles where the same topics may come up in related forms, this practice could be "hiding" useful context in the archives that would otherwise illustrate a topic has recently been addressed.

I'm of the opinion that the talk page is more useful when it always has the most recent discussions at a minimum. I've been here long enough however to assume there's some benefit to the "blanking" practice that I'm not seeing. Can anyone elucidate the reasoning here? --N8_wilson 🔔 00:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You changed the archiving minthreadsleft from 0 to 6. Zero might be too few but six is definitely too many. However, that is up for debate on each talk page and is not something that needs a centralized discussion. One size does not fit all. Leaving old comments leads to unproductive chatter (WP:NOTFORUM) where people reply to ancient messages thereby hitting other editor's watchlists and prolonging long-forgotten issues. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the comment above about unproductive chatter, I see WP:NOTFORUM frequently being cited as the basis for discouraging discussion on talk pages, but the major point of the rule is that one should not take discussion into articles. This aspect of the rule would only be violated by the most clueless editors.

Admittedly it does also state "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles." Is it possible that merely posting this comment is violating that portion of the rule? I would say "no", because I'm making the point that use of the article talk page is not restricted to discussing specific claims of the article. Here, I am suggesting that WP:NOTFORUM is frequently cited erroneously, and that some effort ought to be made to avoid confusion on this point, perhaps requiring a change to WP:Talk page guidelines. But has this misinterpretation of the rule become so ingrained that experienced editors will be inclined to deny the rule's plain language? Fabrickator (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Although I'm sure this section is abused from time to time, you haven't convinced me that it is, in your words, "frequently" abused. I have an open mind about making tweaks to the section, though. The trouble is, your comment is just sort of an alleged issue-raising sort of remark. I've zero notion of exactly how you would change the wording. You would need to share some draft text to demonstrate. Finally, we already have the means to deal with abuse of any WP:P&G... see WP:Gaming the system NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside whether this happens frequently or not, I have previously encountered objections to discussions on the talk page if they do not state a particular claim and also provide a reliable source for the claim. Here we have a case where WP:NOTFORUM is cited to dismiss certain discussion on the talk page as unproductive chatter.

I'm not trying to take a position on what problems leaving old comments on the talk page may cause, just making the point that WP:NOTFORUM isn't particularly specific about the structure of article talk page content, in spite of claims to the contrary that are sometimes made. Fabrickator (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on the I know it when I see it principle, as opposed to a bureaucracy with precise rules that govern (or not) all situations. It is almost always easy to recognize NOTFORUM posts, and seeing that they are unhelpful is similarly easy. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the I know it when I see it principle??? There is always the point at which some kind of personal perspective is all that you have, but if that were the standard, then why bother with having rules requiring "reliable sources" and the like?

But my issue isn't with WP:NOTFORUM, it's with editors who cite it to restrict discussion (e.g. on article talk pages) beyond what the policy says. The discussion should pertain to improving the article, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the initial discussion must involve adding a claim and concurrently providing supporting sources, i.e. we might want to gain consensus that some sort of information should be added to the article, with the details dependent on what the sources support. But I have encountered situations where doing this is claimed to be a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. Fabrickator (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

good to go now

Hello, Please, I believe that this page now meets all the requirements to be featured on Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BJ_Sam Though It was rejected before because some of the sources used wasn't independent, reputable nor reliable but now all the cited sources mentioned in the draft are from independent, reputable, authoritative and widely read sources. Please kindly review and approve this draft? Rubiesar (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)