Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Anonymous user -> unregistered user

{{edit semi-protected}}

As per

• WP:HUMAN,
• WP:IP,
• WP:ANONYMOUS,
• WP:IP edits are not anonymous and
• Meta:Unregistered user.

I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, registered users are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.

Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.

In light of this, please change "registered and anonymous users" -> "registered and unregistered users". Thanks. 113.197.147.212 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Kansan (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes WP:HUMAN and I live the sadness in front of my work. (read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.29.168.231&redirect=no) Good luck --70.29.168.231 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

reflists on article talk pages

Rather frequently I have seen the use of a reflist for an article talk page. Sometimes three or more on a talk page. One can not refer to cite numbers because any archive shifts them all about. Ought this page state that references given in a proposed piece of text be done as "nowiki" so that the full cite is apparent and does not make strange reference lists? Such a guideline would make following "suggested sources" a great deal easier in my opinion. Other opinions? Collect (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Use {{Reflist-talk|close=1}}. The template formats the reflist with a title and box. The |close= closes the list so refs above it don't get parsed below it. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

New archiving thresholds: 70KB in size and 15 section

At an earlier discussion there was a consensus that there is to much archiving. I was then bold an changed the archiving thresholds to 70KB in size and 15 section (or threads). Old values was 50KB and 10 section. The main reason for this change is mainly that current computers and browser can handle larger pages without problems. There has been some edit warring between the new proposed values and the old ones. Do we get a consensus that values 70K and 15 sections is the one to use at section "When to condense pages"? --Kslotte (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Kslotte, there was no "consensus" as you claim, and the discussion in any event had too few people commenting to support this change. The issue here isn't the power of browsers or computers (though there still is an issue with slow internet links in third world countries); rather it's the clutter of ancient/dead discussions that fills far too many Talk: pages. New editors often respond to discussions that ended months or years ago, regarding issues that have long been settled, and which no-one is watching or cares about any more. Often they are responding to editors who have ceased editing. This wastes time and effort. In addition, active discussions may be hidden or disguised by large numbers of dead discussions on a page, further wasting time. I've never seen a Talk: page that had any more than 6 real simultaneous active threads; current events that are contentious and in the news may have more, but when examined one typically finds new threads are simply repetitions of old ones. Why? Because few people will actually bother to read the contents of 10 different threads, much less 15 - instead they'll jump to the bottom, and start a new thread. If anything, the number of threads should be lowered to 6, not raised to 15; there's a reason the MiszaBot default number of threads left is 5. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate leaving things as they are, and also ask that Kslotte stop lengthening archiving time on individual talk pages that s/he's not otherwise involved in. There's no reason old posts should hang around for months or even years, and in the case of living persons and groups or companies, it can be damaging. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Are guidelines sufficiently comprehensible when photos are posted which state attribution required to copy but the photographer lists name as 'by me'?

There is a photo of a sculpture (made of rock salt) depicting the late Polish (died 1935) Marshal and Prime Minister Josef Pilsudski [seen in the Wikipedia entry page for Pilsudski]. The photo credits state the photo may be reproduced as credit is given, in writing, to the photographer who took the photo of the sculpture. The photograph states it was taken, in two separate places, "by me." The photographers actual name is not stated; whoever submitted the photo, and the copyright info, must have done so assuming his or her name would be inserted by whoever reviews Wikipedia submissions (if anyone).

Thus there is a flaw in the Wikipedia design re: contributions of visual images [e.g. photographs] when contributors mistakenly state they have copyright to be attributed "from me" rather than their actual name. ~ Submitting a comment such as this is extremely challenging. It states "sign your posts by typing four tildesAkiva K Segan (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)" but it does not state where and how to do that. I'll just do what it states to do: ~ ~ ~ ~ There is no information provided as to where this posting will be seen; it says this is a "talk page" but there is no info on how to access the talk page. Will see what happens.

Please see the message I have placed on your talk page at User talk:Akiva K Segan. See using the article or project talk pages--Kudpung (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Blatant Spelling Error in Photo Caption ... Injured Officer Not Correctly Named

Along the right side of the main article body, four photos of the shooting scene are vertically arranged along with a caption at the bottom; the caption seems to be part of the photo, meaning the text cannot be highlighted/copied as text-formatted content would be.

In the photo caption, the fallen police officer is identified as Washington, D.C., police officer "Thomas Delaharity"; I believe this is incorrect. The article body correctly identifies the officer as "Thomas Delahanty." To correct this, the photo will need to be edited and reposted.

TonyRony (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This is where we discuss talk page issues (formatting, archiving,the guideline, etc) Please repost your message on the appropriate article or project talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Are redirect talk pages also redirected?

There's been some controversy over how to redirect the page Luther, and at some point, the redirect for the Talk Page went to a different article than the redirect. I changed the talk redirect to match the article redirect, but it seems to me that the talk pages for redirects should NOT be redirected themselves. What's the policy on this? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no policy. If a page is created as a redirect the talk page is rarely created. If a redirect is created as a page move, the talk page is automatically redirected as well. When closing RfDs as keep, a note is placed on the redirect talk page with a link to the discussion, replacing a redirect if necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I have seen cases like this: Article X contains some dubious info, and later it is replaced with a redirect to article Y (or possibly a section within Y). Talk:X is not changed: it will still have all the arguments about X. I have only very quickly looked at the Luther example, but my first impression is that, while it probably does not matter, the redirect should be removed from Talk:Luther so that anyone can comment on the actual Luther page (which is currently a redirect to the dab page, which seems a good idea). Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There's been some controversy over where the article should be redirected, so it makes sense to have the discussion on the article's own talk page, so that the conversation won't be moving with every new redirect. But I tried starting a discussion on Talk:Luther but it's not showing up on the page--is that because of the redirect? Update: I removed the redirect and the discussion showed up. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There are certain WikiProjects that have their own policies — some prefer that redirect talk pages also redirect — and some have WikiProject templates that support class=redirect. I prefer the latter but quite cheefully follow the old admonition, When in Rome, do as the Romans do. — Robert Greer (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a relevant policy. A redirected talk page is fine for a redirect with no history or discussion, but any relevant templates like {{Old AfD multi}} or {{Copied}} should be placed on the talk page. Some old discussions: WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#Is there a standard disposition for the talk page of a merged article?, WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 35#Does G8 apply to the Talk page of redirected articles?. Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I have also run into this problem with WikiProject United States. WPUS supports class redirects but in some cases somem articles fall under WPUS and another projects that prefers to redirect the talk page. So the pickle we run into is which to use. Typically I add the banner under the redirect so that it still populates on the WPUS project and so that the redirect still works however the banner does not display. --Kumioko (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A #REDIRECT directive will only actually cause a redirect if it's the first line on the page. One of its effects is to suppress normal display of the remainder of the page, although the page content is processed so that the page may be categorised. See Vulcan Halt railway station for example; this works best if you have Special:Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Show hidden categories turned on, to reveal the cats added by {{R with possibilities}} and {{R printworthy}}. Curiously, this general suppression of the display does not occur with a diff, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

deleting this content was a mistake :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolifofo (talk • contribs) 06:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

?? What was deleted? I don't recall deleting anything from any of those talk pages. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"...and normally stop if there is any objection"

I would like a clarification of the following

"Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."

The list that follows appears to contain several examples of situations where it is OK to make specific edits even if someone objects. For example:

Fixing an attempt to fake a signature: It seems that this should be fixed even if the signature-faker objects.

Removing prohibited material / Removing harmful posts: Should I leave it in if the person who posted the prohibited/harmful material objects to its removal?.

Archiving material not relevant to improving the article: Again, should a "don't touch my off-topic material!" objection be honored?

So is the list a list of specific situations where an edit is allowed (with care and subject to policy) even if someone objects? Or is the "stop if there is any objection" an absolute requirement to not fix a fake signature, etc. if anyone objects?

A related question: Should I read "...normally stop if there is any objection" as telling me to not change, say, the indentation level if the person who posted the comment objects, or should I read it as giving him permission to object to fixing the indent on comments he didn't write on the behalf of other editors who have not themselves voiced an objection? Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It all depends. I have not looked at the situation behind the recent long discussions, but the basic concept is pretty simple: editors should generally not change other people's comments (do not fix their indents, and definitely do not fix their spelling, and particularly do not "fix" old comments where the discussion is finished). Except, if there is no conflict, and it looks pretty clear that the first editor just goofed, and if really helpful, another editor might fix the first editor's indents, or links, or whatever. But if someone else objects and reverts the change, you would need a really good reason to do it again. An example of a good reason would be removing a personal attack or BLP violation. It would be extremely inadvisable for another editor to insist that their indent correction should be applied because essentially that is trivia, and the same applies to most other changes to comments made by another person. Yes, if someone posts a fake signature, that should be corrected. There is no good way to proceed if they object, but I would consider a brief discussion on the user's talk page followed by a report at WP:ANI if the user insists on posting a fake signature. It is standard to delete or archive material that fails WP:TPG, but insisting on it is only helpful in extreme cases, such as really bad material (an example would be posting commentary on why Obama's birth certificate is a fake with links to the usual rubbish websites), or posting dubious material on a page subject to probation (like Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That was pretty much the conclusion I came to as well. Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Striking indef-blocked users

I recently struck the comments of an indef-blocked sock puppet [1], [2]. This is a practice that I've seen used before, but upon reflection I came here looking for the appropriate guideline to make sure I wasn't over stepping. Reviewing WP:TPO, it seems that a weak argument could be made that this is acceptable based on Removing prohibited material, Removing harmful posts, or Refactoring for relevance. But that argument is indeed weak. Because of this, I would like to ask for clarification so that I can understand whether this not unheard of practice falls within wikipedia guidelines. Thank you, aprock (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

bump aprock (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Without considering the identity of the poster, were the posts harmful or irrelevant? Unless the socks were being used in that discussion to mimic multiple users, I don't think striking was necessary. Blocked user comments will be struck from an RfX and straw polls but harmless article talk page comments don't really require striking. As a minor point, it looks quite unsightly on the linked page! Jebus989^✰ 19:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. The posts were disruptive, so in that sense they were not harmless. With respect to "multiple users" I'll refer you to the identity lists for this user: confirmed and suspected. Do you have a pointer to a policy regarding RfX and straw polls? aprock (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive how? It's a discussion of article content, which is what article talk pages are used for. Sure, tempers are high but it is a contentious topic, and there are several other heated comments like "Thanks for your opinion. Now go read some basic literature about the issue and we may be able to have a conversation" from other users. It's not policy to strike blocked !votes in RfX, it is usually discussed on the RfX talk page (e.g. 1, 2); sometimes an editor will strike them, sometimes they are just indented and other times left entirely for the 'crat to decide. In all cases, people are quite reserved when it comes to crossing out other's comments Jebus989^✰ 19:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

For a description of the disruption caused by this editor, please see the arbcom finding of fact [3] (for which he was site banned, though previously indefinitely blocked [4]), which describes aspects of the disruption on this page. Given that an indefinitely blocked user is editing in a disruptive manner, what is the best way to handle the disruptive edits? In other contexts I've seen them deleted, made small, struck, and annotated. Is there any policy regarding this? aprock (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You came here to ask for advice, but are staunchly arguing with everything I say. The comments he made on that talk page were not disruptive, they are not disrupting progress toward improving an article (WP:DE). His ArbCom case, list of suspected sockpuppets etc. is irrelevant to his talk page comments. Do you think that after a user is banned someone trawls through their entire history striking every talk page comment they've made?? Do you have any diffs illustrating these other contexts? Jebus989^✰ 12:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative, I was just responding to your Disruptive how query. I appreciate that you don't find those edits disruptive. I expect that we should set that particular issue aside as it's not the important issue here. Instead, it might be more useful to find or develop good talk page guidelines for handling these sort of situations. Thanks for the feedback. aprock (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a tricky issue, and I believe that the answer is that it all depends. In your first example, your edit summary is "strike blocked sock". For someone who is simply blocked, and who is doing a bit of socking, there would need to be a reason to strike their comments (i.e. the fact that they are a sock of a blocked user is not a sufficient reason). I did not examine your examples, but in the Race and intelligence topic, I could well imagine that there was a good reason to strike the comments, and my opinion is that such striking could be justified. However, I do not think there is any guideline to prevent someone reverting the striking, and case-by-case discussions would need to be held if a disagreement occurred. For a banned user (per WP:BAN), I have often seen comments by likely socks reverted (i.e. removed), or collapsed ({{hat}}), or struck. In some cases, apparently good edits by a sock of a banned user are systematically removed per WP:DENY (that applies to long term abuse problems). If wanted, you might ask at User talk:John Vandenberg for an opinion (he has rolled back quite a lot of edits by banned users). Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Given this apparent lack of guidelines, does it make sense to add a section to the page which addresses these issues? aprock (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just want to make sure this is 100% acceptable

Is it completely acceptable to re-arrange talk page discussions if the only thing I am doing is correcting indents of specific users and adding outdents? Occasionally, these get off leaving the discussion hard to follow. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend you search out talk pages to refactor, and some users will use indentation to clearly show which post they are replying to, rather than automatically indenting more than the comment above. Outdents are usually added at near enough the right time anyway, I rarely come across a talk page with a tiny column of text at the right. Nevertheless, if the formatting of a thread has been really disrupted to the point where a reader cannot follow the discussion, by all means change it. I think as long as you follow stop if there is any objection (from WP:TPO) and aren't refactoring multiple talk pages, there will be no problems Jebus989^✰ 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking the question at face value, the answer is no—please do not refactor comments. One reason is that refactoring will place an unnecessary burden on editors who are trying to follow the talk page (they have probably already read the original comments, and would now have to check what the refactoring had done, and waste time wonder why the refactoring was done, and whether it was accurate). Another reason is that refactoring can make it hard to work out precisely who-said-what in the future. In a contentious topic, it is sometimes necessary to provide diffs to show that a certain editor made a certain statement. Refactoring complicates that because someone viewing the diffs will wonder why the comment now displayed is different (even if only by an indent) from that shown in the diff. Again, time is wasted wondering why the comment was changed, and whether the changes have made some subtle change in meaning.

It is ok to refactor a comment if not much time has elapsed since the comment was written (and if no one has replied to it yet—I might tweak someone's indent if I am the first person to reply). Also, refactoring can be helpful when rarely needed to clarify comments. Refactoring a contentious discussion by tweaking indents or whatever is almost always a bad idea because someone is sure to complain. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages states, "Good refactoring practices are an important part of maintaining a productive talk page," although other editors reserve the right to object on the grounds that any such changes are not "good".  Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages specifically discusses modifying indents, "Correcting indentation levels" as a part of the section titled, "Non-contentious cleanup".  Regarding indents, sometimes two editors both make a reply in one column and it helps to add a blank line between the two posts.  No one will complain.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I just took Unsintillating's advice and re-factored this section of the talk page just to show that this is much easier to read. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But you have changed my meaning, because I did not reply to Johnuniq, I replied to you.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't understand that about it. So this way is correct, the way I reorganized it? I used to be under the impression that every line was supposed to be indented so a reader could know when a new comment started. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If by "correct" you mean that my meaning has been restored, yes.  Not everyone uses Wikipedia:Indentation.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Indentation should be one step further than the comment you are responding to, which is not always the last comment made. For example, this comment and the one above from Unscintillating are both replies to the same comment from Ryan Vesey, so they both get the same level of indentation. If I wanted to reply to Ryan Vesey's previous comment (14:08, 21 May 2011) then I would use a lower level of indentation, the same as Unscintillating used at 16:00, 21 May 2011. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:TPG being cited to protect vandalism from being removed

Twice I tried to delete the following vandalism from the talk page of the Rubyfruit Jungle article: [5]. Both times I was reverted and told that this guideline prohibited such deletion. The comment is a distasteful joke about vaginas left by an anonymous IP address as the first post to the talk page. It doesn't relate to any content of the article and is potentially offensive to editors who actually want to use the talk page for discussion. It is a textbook case of vandalism per WP:Vandalism: "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page". I don't understand how this guideline prohibits me from deleting obvious vandalism like this. If it does, the wording needs to be changed. Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone could object to you removing that. It says right here in the TPG "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." It seems like a clear case of vandalism to me.--Aronoel (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)