Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

needed: Talk..about Talk .. about the article

I speak from my heart, and always have. I bring up issues that I think are under-reported. I am getting flamed on the pretext that 'Talk is not a forum'. Perhaps a talk section about the talk section, is needed. CorvetteZ51 (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Posting within another editor's post

Should an editor post within another editor's post? I think this is a poor if relatively rare practice. One can say that this is addressed by language such as "Never edit or move someone's comment", but why not explicitly state "Do not situate your post within another editor's post" or "Do not post within another editor's post"? Bus stop (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right; that's not the way we do things. It wouldn't seem proper to dig into another editor's post and insert replies in between paragraphs, sentences, or interjecting mid-sentence! How exactly do you want to work it into the text? Chrisrus (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Any proposal should link to Help:Using talk pages, which has a good section on indenting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As an example, see this insertion into a comment of mine; I did not feel affronted as it was signed and not a bad faith attempt to refactor my comment, but I did reformat it by indenting and enclosing in square brackets to make it more obvious that it was a departure from my comment, without removing it from its place interrupting my comment. However, this is perhaps an exceptional example and the practice should generally not be encouraged as it has great potential for confusion if editors need to reply to replies within comments Inception-style. —sroc 💬 17:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A brief paragraph under the paragraph reading "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request" is what I think might be a good way to communicate this. That next, brief paragraph could read: "Never post within another editor's post as this may interrupt the flow of their writing." I will go ahead and do this, if given the green light to do so. I can be reverted, of course, if their are objections. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Opposed; the principle at play is change its meaning so I'm opposed to replacing those words with a waffly "may interrupt flow". Alternatively,if you meant we should keep the existing text about "change its meaning" but add a sentence starting "NEVER", then I'm opposed because the first admits the possibility of appropriate insertions, but the new proposed sentence says the opposite ("never"), and that's contradictory NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy—there is a difference between moving someone else's post and posting within someone else's post. I'm not suggesting removing or changing language already existing in policy. I'm describing where I think would be a good place to insert an additional sentence. It might be easier if I just make the change, and then you or another editor can revert me or alter my language. Alternatively we can discuss it here, but it might be more cumbersome. Bus stop (talk)

You did not address the basis for my objection (i.e., your text would create a contradiction). How about this alternative proposal, which preserves existing text and adds new text that I have underlined for clarity

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

Do not add comments in the middle of another editor's post. Instead, add your remark at an appropriate point after the other editor's signature, using proper threading and indentation.

Can you please tell me what "contradiction" you feel I was adding? Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The existing text does not say "Never insert" it only says "don't change". Your text can be read as "Never insert, period". If one reads the first part as

• "if on a rare occasion you insert something in someone else's comment, make sure you don't change it"

and your text as

• "never ever insert anything whatsoever"

then that is a contradiction. You may not read the existing text that way, and you may not mean your proposed text that way, but they are susceptible to those contradictory interpretations. I think we're talking about the insertion of an everyday run-of-the-mill type of comment, so my alternative language is (A) written to try to describe those sorts of remarks and (B) echo the meaning and link (i.e., help page on how to WP:THREAD) as described in the "Keep the layout clear" section under "good practices" at the top of the TPG. What did you think of my alternative? Is it at least as good as your proposal? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see the "contradiction", but moving on, I can accept your wording except that I would end your second sentence after the word "signature". Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Stopping after "signature" is fine if our goal is to have lingo we can cite when complaining. However, if our goal is to help eds who don't already know about this basic convention, then they probably don't know about threading/indenting either. Why not reward the diligent new editor who reads this far with the link to Help:Using talk pages#Indentation? That way they know (A) to not add their comment in the middle of another's and (B) how to indent their comment so everyone knows who is replying to whom? Does that extra text hurt?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I felt that brevity resulted in a statement that was more emphatic, but your reasoning is sound. Include the last few words. Please make the edit. Should the first two words, "Do not", be bolded? It seems like a good idea to me. Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done with some additional edits to hopefully make it read easier for first timer readers. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You didn't put the links in for "using proper threading and indentation". Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dope! Thanks. Fixed NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes for two reasons.

1. changing imperatives "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. " to "It is generally inappropriate to .... Change the meaning of someone else's comment" -- is are really big change in this guideline that needs much more discussion (a well advertised RfC) for such a large change.
2. I do not approve of a total ban on "newsgroup" interleaving in favour of the Lotus Notes style email conversations (although inverted to move the latest comment from the top to bottom). This is something that has been bubbling along for a long time and again if some editors want to insert this change it ought to be discussed and a consensus built for it in a well advertised RfC.

Such large changes ought not to be made by just four editors. -- PBS (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD addition - "Male is not the default"

Fellow Wikipedians, I noticed a new addition to the guidelines by Sarah (SV), as follows:

Male is not the default Editors should avoid exchanges that might make a talk page a hostile place for women. This includes locker-room banter and the use of sexual slurs. As of 2015 between eight and 16 percent of Wikipedians are thought to be women. If that percentage is to increase, talk pages must be places where women feel comfortable participating.

While I share and genuinely admire the editor's desire for improved Talk page behaviour, I am not sure that this is best couched as a gendered issue. And considered that it might be worth discussing to ensure consensus.

I welcome the thoughts of interested editors.

Please let me know if this has already been discussed in an alternate location. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see more women editing wikipedia also. (Once I suggested a women's only discussion corner, but that idea was trashed instantly.) Anyway, when I realize I don't know one's gender, I usually ask, or if speaking in the third person (and I remember) I type "(s)he". It would be nice if the language had a gender-neutral pronoun, but alas. I rather think sensitivity of this sort can not be legislated. There are probably lots of examples of basic politeness that have been written into the TPG. As Tom Clancy's character Jack Ryan was fond of saying, "If you have to write down your ethics rules, you've already lost the battle." I'm open to hearing other viewpoints but I sort of lean towards not wanting to include elementary politeness. Granted there are a lot of male Neanderthals out there, but I doubt any will be won over by text here, which means text here becomes mainly useful for clobbering people... don't we have enough of that already? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, since there are gender-neutral language choices, like the "(s)he" option you employed or singular they, what do you mean by "It would be nice if the language had a gender-neutral pronoun"? Flyer22 (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I meant a word that appears in every English dictionary, and kids know before they enter kindergarten. A real grammatically correct word, rather than a modge-podge of our own non-grammatical inventions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It should absolutely be couched as a gender issue. I'm not sure how anyone can think otherwise! A huge - and I mean huge - part of solving the gender gap is for everyone to work hard at establishing empathy with other editors. One of the biggest problems with sexist behavior is people who are unaware of gender participation problems. A simple reminder to them that the gender gap exists can go a long way to establishing that. --Jorm (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that locker-room banter and sexual slurs should be avoided, but there's no reason to make it a gender issue. I know many women who say things that make me blush and many men who are easily offended. Saying it needs to be avoided because we need to accommodate the sensitivity of the ladies doesn't seem like a step in the right direction to me. --Onorem (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to deal with WP:DIVA in this light (see its talk page). I agree strongly that the gender gap is a huge problem. It may really be the #1 problem. If it's not, then it's #2, behind semi-pro POV pushing by concerted groups of editors to shift coverage on religious, ethnic-political, or socio-political agenda grounds. I leaned in support of this edit, because, as Jorm says, "A simple reminder ... that the gender gap exists can go a long way". But I can see the objection to it being this specific. I wouldn't want to lose the gender-gap pointer, but maybe the advice could include avoidance of assumptions about religious, political, and other cultural traits. I was looking at stats only two days ago. While I've forgotten the precise numbers (which differed from study to study), it seemed to indicate about 80% of editors are white, male, heterosexual, and American, and that (while not a majority) the largest bloc of editors are from the US West Coast, and in the tech industry or academia. So, it's an endeavor dominated by white, American, male, straight nerds. Add "obsessive compulsive" to that list, too, according to another paper. Which explains a whole lot of things. The imbalances caused by this editor-base bias in turn tend to generate problematic overcompensation reactions (e.g. campaigning by a camp in the GLBT activism sphere has led to sweeping transgender-related changes in policy [in the broad sense] that are having some negative consequences and probably need to be adjusted a little, to not create a special class of people given rights as subjects of article coverage that others do not enjoy). Anyway, if it's correct that the top 2 issues are sexism (mostly latent) and issue-based POVwarring (rather more explicit), addressing them at once is probably more bang for the buck. Sorry, Americanism for "better output for the same input effort". Oh, that's a geekism, wait...  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish's suggested modification " maybe the advice could include avoidance of assumptions about religious, political, and other cultural traits. How about

Try to avoid making assumptions about other editors. This includes, but is not limited to, assumptions about the other editor's gender, religious belief, political views, cultural or ethnic backgroundand, etc. When in doubt it's better to admit uncertainty, ask the other editor, or make your point without mentioning the issue at all. Editors citing this guideline should do so while making an extra effort at WP:Assuming good faith, since these problems frequently arise from unconscious habit, rather than malice.

That might provide the gentle reminder, while mitigating against this language being used as a club. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Needs some compression: "Try to avoid making assumptions about other editors' gender ...". I like the "try" in that; implants that it's a conscious effort one chooses to engage in, instead of just ordering "Avoid ..." Can we keep SV's intro: "Editors should avoid exchanges that might make a talk page a hostile place for" others? Actually, 3rd & 4th sentences her original could be a gender-specific bullet point, then add another about social group issues like religion/politics/nationality, perhaps. Doubt we'd need stats for that, just some kind of "from all over the world, all walks of life, and faiths" kind of message. There's a focus shift, though. Not making assumption is one topic,

(A) Yes my #1 issue is to change "AVOID" to "TRY", and provide explicit reminder to AGF when citing the rule. Beyond that, what I say is wordsmithing.

(B) Speaking of wordsmithing, if we itemize different forms of discrimination in distinct bullets, how many are too many? I mean, gee, we should certainly try to reduce gender bias, but why just gender bias? There are many other groups getting the short end of the stick. How many do we add? If the answer is "as many as it takes", could the list ever become so long that it becomes absurd? If victims in these various groups hope for a different society, someday we need to advocate for what we want instead of just fighting against what we don't. Said another way, do we foster gender or racial blindness by constantly putting "don't think about race and gender" in each other's face, or by instead speaking as though the world were already better than that? I tried to emphasize the latter in my text. But if people want a distinct list of hurts, that's OK with me, provided this is pitched not in terms of "Thou Shalt" and also puts responsibility on the 2nd party to AGF when citing this for "gentle reminder" purposes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking two is enough, and normal prose is best – bullets will inspire lengthening the list. The gender one is distinct from political/religious/ethnic/national/etc., since the underlying divide is essentially universal and innate, while the rest seem to be soci-cultural aggregations. There are other innate differences (sexual preference, many disabilities, cis/transgender, etc.), but they don't seem to relate strongly to specific needs for "think before you type" quasi-rules here. The two most clearly problematic are approaching everything from a "dude" point of view, and approaching everything from a liberal, Pacific Coast, nerdy, white hipster point of view. That latter grouping (even when intersect with the first) is already pretty cool with TG and disability issues. The statistical fact of the gender divide is important. A stat about what is the largest editing bloc would provide, in inverse form, the same kind of information without having to list separate stats for each political/religious/ethnic/national/etc. variant. Google turns up that data very quickly, but I'm not sure which is the most recent/reliable. They're all probably good enough, so maybe pick the one that shows what the largest editing block is in as many socio-cultural intersections.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the quiet assumption in this advice inadvertently sexist against women as well? It sets two distinct categories.

Editors should avoid exchanges that might make a talk page a hostile place for women. This includes locker-room banter and the use of sexual slurs. As of 2015 between eight and 16 percent of Wikipedians are thought to be women. If that percentage is to increase, talk pages must be places where women feel comfortable participating."

Despite its good intentions this statement seems particularly generalizing in its description of the average woman; the need to be protected from Wikipedia's disproportionately male society, the disgust with "locker-room banter", refusal to engage in sexual slurs or jokes (although I by no means deny the importance of harshly penalizing remarks like "bitch" and comments like "go back to the kitchen" under WP:CIVIL). Would it not be better to make this a central point of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and to work from there? We also have disproportionately few Russian and Asian people editing this wiki. We should be taking a look at the demographics of the administrators. More female administrators would likely help ease the problems. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, but I think we're now looking at the "Try to avoid making assumptions about other editors. This includes, but is not limited to, assumptions about the other editor's gender, religious belief, ..." rewrite. I agree that SYSTEMIC is the locus for the extended rationale about this, but it's also a content guideline, not a talk page guideline. So, if we cover it here briefly with regard to our editing environment, we can "see also" the content guideline for the extended treatment.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My thought as well. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should be calling out either gender in our policies. I find that the wording[1] suggests that locker-room banter and the use of sexual slurs are inherently male. Naturally we should not make assumptions about other editors but that goes both ways. We should avoid being hostile to people regardless of their gender. Chillum 22:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 20:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Locker-room banter and sexual slurs on Wikipedia almost always come from men. I haven't offered examples because I don't want to point the finger. The editors almost never mean harm by the banter, and I would guess don't even notice that it's off-putting. That's why I used the expression "male is not the default," because I think a lot of it is accidental.

There was a recent example of banter where a woman objected to it, someone told her off for objecting, and another man (he had taken part in the banter, but was now defending the woman) said to the scolder something like: "hang on, you might change your attitude if I tell you that's a woman." This sums up the problem. His intentions were good, but the bottom line was that women are "other." So I would like to add something about making sure talk pages don't deterioriate into locker-room-type exchanges. Sarah ^(talk) 21:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

But this is not merely a gender issue, why do we have to focus on one issue? We should just say no banter in general, as it can make WP a hostile place for any group of people. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 03:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

But it is a gender issue. There is a marked difference in communication styles that has a disproportionate and adverse impact on women editors. Last year's paper "Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration" details how this can manifest itself on our talk pages. The lack of women editors is often attributed to exactly the sort of behavior/environment that this addition addresses. gobonobo ^{+ c} 12:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

how ironic ... sometimes I wonder why I still edit here. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not a gender issue, it is a behavioural issue. It is down right inappropriate for us to be declaring that one gender is the problem. We can all work under the same policy. Chillum 15:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Refusal to communicate on uncomfortable topics?

BullRangifer, I understand that you added this bit to WP:Talk page guidelines after making this edit to the WP:Own policy, but I think that the "Refusal to communicate on uncomfortable topics" part needs clarification/rewording. There are various Wikipedia topics that editors here might find uncomfortable and not want to discuss on their talk pages; refusing to discuss such things on their talk pages doesn't automatically mean that they are violating the function of the talk page and are being uncollaborative. For one, article matters are often better discussed at the article talk page (so that others watching the article, or passerby editors, will know of the discussion). For two, an editor repeatedly posting to another editor's talk page against their wishes is usually frowned upon and considered WP:Harassment unless there is a valid reason (such as a WP:BLP violation matter) for the editor to be repeatedly posting there. And for three, if it's not related to improving a Wikipedia article or a similar Wikipedia page, the editor also likely is not violating the function of the talk page and being uncollaborative. Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we are in basic agreement on most of your points, and my wording probably could be improved. The core idea is most relevant for behavioral issues involving blocked editors who can only discuss on their talk page. Sometimes issues need to be discussed so that the editor comes to a better understanding of policies and/or what they did wrong. If they suddenly refuse to continue the already existing conversation (because it's uncomfortable and there are no truly personal attacks and nastiness) by banning other involved editors and admins, then they are being uncollaborative and acting like they own their talk page, when the talk page has a community function which should not be impaired. It's a different matter when they can use article talk pages to discuss content. That might be awkwardly worded, but I hope you get the drift. If this is too controversial, just remove it. I'm not wedded to the idea. I just thought it needed to be addressed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, but it reads like "If you're a kid, and you don't want to talk about sex because it makes you uncomfortable, then you're bad" or "If you're dying, and you don't want to talk about your impending death because it makes you uncomfortable, then you're bad". I've had a go at narrowing it to your own behavior, which might help. I'm not entirely certain that the sentence is really necessary, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WhatamIdoing, this is an improvement. Thanks. Even though I'd seen that BullRangifer had replied to me, I just now read that reply. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Very good points. The narrowing of focus is a needed improvement, as it was too ambiguous. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I oppose the addition. The sentiment is good but seems like WP:CREEP because as the saying goes, "Locks keep out the honest people." Blocked eds in a huff will still withdraw from discussions on their talk pages (or delete them) as they see fit, and most likely eds of that frame of mind won't even know of this text. In addition, suppose this text is violated (whether they know or not)? Would this text let us do anything different to their talk page? Answer no; that would take a community decision to impose controls about what you can delete from OWNTALK. What then? Ah, yes. What's left is the ability to point to this text in support of "They took their marbles and went home" at ANI/AE etc. But the factual story tells that tale just fine. We don't need still more legalese to help support it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Good points. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the addition too. It is what editors do, not what they don't do that can cause problems on Wikipedia. It is an editor posting comments that are uncomfortable on a users talk page that would be doing something that is causing a problem. Everyone is entitled to inaction on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Dmcq, if an editor refuses to discuss anything on Wikipedia, you think that's never a problem? I can point to various examples where it's been a problem. For example, problematic editors who don't respond on their talk pages or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Or the ones who rarely respond. Trying to get those types of editors to understand problems they are making is a pain. And because they refuse to communicate, one cannot know if they do understand...but are doing what they want to do. Such editors are routinely indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE or for WP:Disruptive editing. Their inaction is part of the problem. That's why the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Ignoring comments section exists. Even well-meaning editors who are WP:Disruptive and are not communicating are indefinitely blocked. The Wikipedia editors who never communicate or occasionally communicate are commonly a problem because they usually understand so little about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If they cannot collaborate, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, collaboration normally includes discussion. So, in that regard, I understand BullRangifer's concern. And inaction on Wikipedia causes other problems, such as no one helping out with a WP:Dispute resolution matter, but that's another topic. Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

How on earth did you go from problematic silence to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Ignoring comments? I ask because it so happens I'm the ed who penned that subsection; I don't think it has been tweaked very much if at all. As the author, the "reason it exists" is to encourage sensible talk page formatting (as the text states) and it has at all to do with problematic silence. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I went from problematic silence to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Ignoring comments because I noted editors who engage in problematic silence as commonly being problematic editors and stated "inaction is part of the problem." I was clear that editors who refuse to comment on talk pages and/or rarely comment on talk pages understand so little about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. This includes not editing talk pages appropriately after having been repeatedly informed of talk page protocol. I've repeatedly experienced that type of editing from problematic silent editors. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you read the heading more than the text. The text does not scold people for ignoring talk page comments. It explains one circumstance when ignoring others may be appropriate silence, rather than the problematic kind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I read the text. I have almost all of the guideline memorized (it's not intentional memorization; I'm like that with text in general). I don't know how else to get you to understand why I cited that aspect of the guideline; so instead of repeating myself, I'll just state that I did not mean that it "scold[s] people for ignoring talk page comments." Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll give what I meant one more try; the section you wrote states, "Persistent noncompliant talk page formatting after friendly notification is a mild form of disruption. After editors have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines (such as indentation, sectioning, and signatures), they are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. Other editors are under no obligation to address the content of additional posts that flagrantly disregard the talk page formatting standards." What the text states about a mild form of disruption and editors being expected to make a reasonable effort to follow the talk page conventions concerns editors who are problematic in that regard (meaning the ones who do not follow the talk page guidelines after having been repeatedly informed of them). Silent editors are commonly problematic in that regard because they usually don't have a good grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines due to their lack of communication with others on Wikipedia. Simply observing Wikipedia is clearly usually not enough; communication is important on Wikipedia. There are Wikipedia editors who have been on Wikipedia for several years but are essentially WP:Newbies because they haven't taken the time to significantly learn Wikipedia's ways; in my experience, these editors are commonly the silent types and commonly do not know of appropriate Wikipedia talk page protocol. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If an e4ditor refuses to talk to you on their talkpage that is not a problem. What is a problem is if they do things in articles or article talk pages which disrupts Wikipedia. You are not entitled to a response from somebody. You are not entitled to understand somebody. Whether you understand them or not is your problem. Certainly go an try and talk to somebody on their talk page if you think it will resolve a problem but that's all it is, talk. Action is what matters. If you complain about something it takes the form xyz has been doing something, I and others have tried to reason with them but they don't respond and they continue doing it. The continue doing it is the problem. Dmcq (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'm quite happy if people just stay the hell away from my talk page and don't try discussing anything with me on it. If they want to discuss things on the article talk pages fine but I see too much of people forming cliques and harassment and bullying people. So I discourage it. Any pointing to a clause here implying that a person is being uncollaborative because they don't want to diiscuss things on their talk page gives I feel a free hand to bullying behaviour. Dmcq (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Dmcq, stating that we "are not entitled to a response from somebody. [We] are not entitled to understand somebody. Whether [we] understand them or not is [our] problem." is the exact opposite of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If an editor doesn't want to respond to anything/work with others, that editor should not be editing Wikipedia. Whether or not we understand editors is commonly the problem, as seen every day at WP:ANI and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Like WP:NOTHERE states for its Little or no interest in working collaboratively listing: "Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and in a cooperative manner with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict." Those are all reasons to block a Wikipedia editor, and I support that listing, having personally dealt with so many silent or mostly silent problematic editors. So per what I stated in my "18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)" post above, I agree to disagree with you on this, and don't see your rationale as a good rationale to have removed the addition. I think that NewsAndEventsGuy's rationale is the better rationale for the removal. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, considering that I started this section, I agree that we are not necessarily entitled to a response from somebody. But there are certainly things on Wikipedia that editors should answer to. And again, if they don't want to answer to those things, Wikipedia is not the place for them. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social forum. It s purpose is to develop an online encyclopaedia. That a person doesn't want to talk to you is your problem. What you are entitled to complain about is what they do to articles or disruption on the article talk pages. And we don't need you going around telling people that Wikipedia is not the place for them because they don't want to talk to you on their talk page. Dmcq (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Was I not clear that problematic editors who don't respond on their talk pages or elsewhere on Wikipedia, or the ones who rarely respond, are commonly a problem because they usually understand so little about how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Was I not clear that trying to get those types of editors to understand problems they are making has repeatedly proven a problem for Wikipedia? Was I not clear that Wikipedia is about collaboration and that, on Wikipedia, collaboration normally includes discussion? None of that has anything to do with viewing Wikipedia as a social forum; in that regard, I don't need to be reminded of the very thing that is in the WP:NOT policy. What we don't need is you or others telling Wikipedia editors that it's a good idea or fine that they don't communicate on Wikipedia; it's not a good idea whatsoever, as made clear by different Wikipedia protocols/rules, including Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages. Nowhere did I state or imply that Wikipedia is not a place for an editor because they don't want to talk to me or others on their talk page (again, I am the one who started this section and complained about part of the addition you removed before you removed the addition in its entirety); I've been clear that editors who don't communicate at all on Wikipedia are commonly a problem; to act like it is just my problem or the problem of another editor trying to do the communicating is utterly false. It is a Wikipedia problem, as proven time and time again by those who have been indefinitely blocked in part because of their failure to communicate on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect there is a misunderstanding which is making the discussion difficult. Let's narrow the discussion from an overly broad "unwilling to discuss anything at all in any and all situations on a user talk page" (that's deliberate hyperbole to highlight a misunderstanding of Flyer22's points) to "a blocked editor who suddenly becomes unwilling to continue an existing discussion on their talk page." Do you see the difference?

We have many situations which require use of user talk pages for purposes other than directly dealing with specific article content. We often have discussions involving reasons for a block, and a blocked editor suddenly decides they will not reply to certain editors, while continuing to reply to others. A blocked editor has no right to dictate the scope of a discussion of their problems by refusing to discuss those problems. Because of their block, they actually have fewer ownership rights, not more, on their talk page. It belongs to the community, and this is a situation where the community's concerns are more important.

I've seen a couple instances where such an editor banned every editor who brought up the specifics of his misdeeds, and demanded that only uninvolved admins reply. That's pretty uncollaborative, and their eventual banning was delayed quite a long time because of their obstructive attitude. Hundreds of man hours were wasted.

They were preventing use of their talk page for one of its intended purposes, and this is what we need to address. Such obstructionism should not be allowed, and it needs to be addressed. Maybe the language needs to be narrowed to this specific type of situation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If an admin delays blocking a person more because they don't respond compared to when they do respond then the admin is not coping properly. The real problem should be that people do respond and that delays their blocking - and that occurs far more often with admins bending over backwards allowing all sorts of behaviour. Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

On closing discussions

I've had a go at discouraging the forces of bureaucracy in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Closing discussions.

The reasons, of course, are that soliciting a formal closing statement when everyone already knows the results is a waste of everyone's time. Our editors are smart enough to be able to figure out the consensus from most discussions.

Please WP:Be bold with improving it, and {{ping}} me if you have questions specifically for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't like your change of "Any uninvolved editor" to "Any editor." In my opinion, the editor should usually be uninvolved unless it's an uncontentious discussion where the WP:Consensus is very clear. As for your statement that "Our editors are smart enough to be able to figure out the consensus from most discussions.", that is often not my experience. Too many of our editors (newbies, experienced ones, and those in between) base consensus solely on headcount, which is the exact opposite of what WP:Consensus is about. Too many of them have to be reminded of WP:NOTAVOTE. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I readded "uninvolved". Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you like. I think it depends on how narrowly you understand a "close". If a close is always some fancy official action, then, sure, it should probably be an uninvolved editor, for the sake of appearances if nothing else. But if your "close" is the kind of everyday comment that you write on talk pages, saying that it looks like people have basically agreed on X, so you're doing that now, then there's definitely no need to exclude involved editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't object to your removal of "uninvolved" because of always or mostly wanting an "official" close; I based it on experience. I was clear that there is an exception aspect to it, by stating "unless it's an uncontentious discussion where the WP:Consensus is very clear." I was not talking about common-sense closes seen on talk pages (and I don't think people will interpret the guideline to mean those); of course, that is an exception. People should know very well when they should and should not close a discussion; if they don't know that, they need more experience with Wikipedia debates requiring a decent close and the type of common-sense closes seen on talk pages and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Goodness knows...the ones who don't understand WP:Consensus should not be closing a thing. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, using "uninvolved" is consistent with the Requesting a close subsection. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I too think "Uninvolved" should remain. As an aside in reply to "the ones who don't understand WP:Consensus should not be closing a thing" So true. Trouble is many people don't know that they don't know. That's not so bad because they can learn. The bigger problem is people who think they know, but suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:SHOUT!

@Njsustain: made a bold edit claiming that using exclamation points can violate WP:SHOUT (possibly in response to me using them on other talk pages. Any time I used them they said I was "shouting"). Does everybody agree that this should be included on this article..? Prcc27 (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It is used for emphasis, so doing so repeatedly, autimatically, without restraint (possibly as Prcc27 does almost every time he makes a statement on a talk page) is certainly within the description given in the article. Does anyone think it should not be included? Njsustain (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit to WP:TPG referred to is here. I see no issue in principle with explicitly mentioning exclamation marks in this section, and support the text included by Njsustain. No comment or judgement on individual editors contributions is intended. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing talk-page archives

An editor has been requesting that NACs "close" discussions that were archived weeks ago. (That is, the discussion ends naturally, the section gets archived one or more weeks later, and then several weeks after the archiving, he requests that someone write a closing statement for the long-archived discussion – so long ago, that it would be inappropriate to unarchive the discussion per TPG's usual rules.)

I propose changing this guideline and WP:RFC to discourage editors from adding closing statements to archives or requesting closes for long-archived discussions. Since this could affect more than one page, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#Requesting closing statements for archived discussions as a central discussion point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Non talk page reviews and posting style

The following entry was added to the subsection Others' comments:

Review pages: Peer reviews, good article reviews, and featured article candidates are collaborative processes in which a reviewer may provide a list of comments on an article; most editors expect the responses to be interspersed among these comments. An example is here; note that you should not modify the comments themselves in any way.

From the history of the page:

• 12:55, 19 July 2015‎ Mike Christie (→‎Others' comments: Add another bullet for review processes, which allow replies interspersed with original comments)
• 15:56, 3 August 2015‎ PBS (removed Mike Christiecomment on "Review pages" because it is unfocused this a TALK page guideline NOT about review pages. This page need to be kept focused.)
• 01:58, 5 August 2015‎ WhatamIdoing (Undid revision 674384504 by PBS (talk) Review pages *are* a kind of talk page, i.e., a page that "provide[s] space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page") (undo | thank)

WhatamIdoing why are you reverting something to keep in on the project page when it is a new bullet point and there has not been a discussion on its merits? I am not going to revert it again immediately, but unless there is a clear consensus to keep it please assume that I have, and that the onus is on you to show that there is a clear consensus to insert it. -- PBS (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The lead states:

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply.

So far so good but this bullet point is about is something other than talk pages. In which case I do not see its relevant to this guideline. If needed (and I do not think it is) it is better off on the specific guidance for those pages.

If someone uses a similar format on talk pages to that described in this bullet point then it is likely the response would be similar, some object to "interspersed" (The term used in the article Posting style is "Interleaved") other do not.

There are problems with the wording "Peer reviews, good article reviews, and featured article candidates are collaborative processes in which a reviewer may provide a list of comments on an article". Does this mean that talk pages are not collaborative processes in which an editor may provide a list of comments on an article?

-- PBS (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the onus is on everyone to figure out what the actual consensus is. Bold editing of guidelines (and even policies) is explicitly permitted.

Your rationale was wrong, because review pages are covered by TPG. In fact, if you think of TPG's primary purpose as covering discussions about improving articles, then it makes far more sense for TPG to include FARs than to include ANI. In reality, it covers all of the above: any page that editors use primarily for communicating with each other.

Some people dislike interleaved comments. However, that style is quite common on GA, FAC, FAR, and PR pages, and it is unusual to see complaints about that style on those pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Some people raised this issue above in #Posting within another editor's post -- PBS (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about the exact wording, but I think this guideline should include something that makes it clear that interleaved comments are acceptable (in fact, they're often expected, not merely acceptable) on, e.g., FAC, GAN, and PR. I've seen a couple of cases where editors (who were new to those processes) were avoiding interleaving because this guideline makes it appear it's unacceptable. I agree with Whatamidoing that this guideline applies to those pages -- article talk pages are the most common space for editor interaction but unless I'm misunderstanding something these guidelines are really interaction guidelines and would be cited by an editor if, for example, someone edited another editor's comments on a page that was not a talk page.

Actually, there are cases even in article talk pages where interleaving is acceptable, but I admit I've mostly seen it among editors who are habitués of FAC. For example, a list of points for discussion may draw (and may be intended to draw) interleaved responses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

WP:TALKNEW Placement of New Sections in Dormant Policy Discussions

I recently began a discussion with another editor with regards to the placement of new Talk Page sections for the WP Policies & Guidelines WP:NCCL, which had been dormant until my recent proposal since June of 2014. I will summarize my position, in quotation, below:

The idea of new discussions (on unique areas of the WP guidelines) being best found on the bottom of the Talk Page appears contradictory to the intention of making them easily found. It seems to me that especially where Talk Page activity that effects WP Policies & Guidelines both covers a unique knowledge area and has been long-dormant, new issues should be presented at the forefront of the Page.

Proposal is therefore that we give consideration to including an exception to the current prescriptions of WP:TALKNEW, that distinctive new Sections added to the Talk Pages of articles discussing WP Policies & Guidelines that have been inactive beyond a reasonable period of time should be raised to the top of the said Page. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)