Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

is it acceptable for an editor to erase someone's post because it wasn't indented the way they wanted it to be?

User_talk:Dream_Focus#Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments I have someone arguing with me, denying they did anything wrong. Confirm please you can not erase someone's post because it wasn't indented how you wanted it and you claim someone might somehow get confused. The offending edits are [1] and [2] Dream Focus 21:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be inclined to either fix the indent myself—and risk being taken to task for changing someone else's post, especially if I misread what post they were replying to—or leave a note on their talk page asking them to fix it themselves. Another approach might be to place a note under the offending post, pinging the user who didn't indent properly and specifically asking them to remove the note when they fix it. Removing the whole post is a little over the top, sure, but it doesn't seem like a huge deal unless they make a habit of it; everybody is entitled to exercise bad judgment once in a while. You've made them aware of your disapproval, the post has been restored, so what's left to say? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree deletion was a poor choice in this instance. See also WP:REFACTOR NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

it's a bit rude on a user talk page and inadmissible anywhere else. WP:REFACTOR appears to be perfectly clear and precise. Maintaining the correct levels of indenting is quite appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What Kudpung said.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Excessive all-caps shortcuts

Can an excessive use of shortcuts which are written in all-caps be considered shouting? If so, how much? wumbolo ^^^ 16:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Its sort of a leading question, as you have injected your own opinion into the question via the word "excessive". That's meant as constructive NPOV feedback. The important thing is.... who knows? We would be able to give better answers with an example of where you think it is a problem. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Examples required, please. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Generally, no. If someone really needs to cite 18 policy sections, it's kinder to do that with shortcuts than with full-length page titles. The odds that it is needed are low, but there is no policy against being hyperbolic or a "rules person"; it's just tedious. More of a WP:JERK matter than anything else. There can also be WP:BITE considerations; newer users don't know what all that gibberish means and peppering them with a shotgun blast of WIKronyms is off-putting. This is one of the reasons I routinely replace crap like [[WP:BLP1E|notable for one event]] with [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event|notable for one event]] in actual guideline, policy, and non-userspace essay text. These pages are mostly intended for recent recruits; when they hover over the links, they should see something that's parseable by them. Shortcuts exist for experienced editors' talkpage and URL-bar convenience.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by blocked sock puppets

Statement of issue

Bold edit and revert
Since Dec 2015, the TPG has talked about support/oppose comments by blocked socks. I believe the section needs work and here's why.

• A Bold edit by Rhododendrite (talk · contribs) on May 26 tweaked the language of this section so that on its face it applies to all comments by blocked socks, not just WP:NOTVOTE (e.g., support/oppose) type comments.
• However, Thinker78 (talk · contribs) then reverted with the usual demand to "get consensus first".
  

History
This section was originally added by NE Ent (talk · contribs) in this Dec 5 2015 edit following a discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard earlier that month. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Not-Votes and Discussion

• Support (1) Unless I missed it, the original discussion did not distinguish between not-vote (oppose/support) type comments by blocked sockpuppets and any other comments by blocked sockpuppets. (2) Seems like actual practice in my experience. (3) Creating an artificial distinction between not-votes and other comments by blocked socks provides undesirable ways to game the system which we should all oppose. (4) pet peeve, When eds lack evidence and/or logic for why an edit is detrimental I wish they would just say "Reverted because I Want to see you jump through hoops first".... @Thinker78, can you articulate a single reason why the TPG should treat not-vote comments by blocked socks differently than other comments by blocked socks? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that this guideline is just for "support" or "oppose" comments probably to avoid undue weight to an issue supported or opposed by different sucks and that it does not apply to other comments. That is why I reverted. Saying this, then this guideline should be expanded to include the same action to recommendations by socks in article for deletion discussions. Other comments should be treated in a case by case basis, because if the sock is just answering a question like "how do I properly format an edit?", I don't see why the comment should be struck if it has a legitimate answer, provided that they made the comment before getting blocked or banned from making said comment. Thinker78 (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Edited 17:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • ? The text I added says "...sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban...". If they are editing in violation of a block or ban, they are editing in violation of a block or ban. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Thinker78, this is the best and most appropriate typo I have seen in a long time: ...an issue supported or opposed by different sucks... --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Beat me to it. Thanks for posting this, NAEG (with a good reminder to set up email notifications for my singular doppelganger account :) ). I made the change following a discussion on MelanieN's talk page (pinging participants: @Doug Weller, Mandruss, Objective3000, Atsme, and Winkelvi:). I had gone through and started striking the comments of a particularly active sock of a community banned editor. Upon reading this page and WP:SOCKSTRIKE (which I would propose to change if this change is endorsed), I found myself wondering whether I should avoid striking comments in active discussions that aren't a !vote. I wound up unstriking non-!votes (!!votes, if you will) and leaving a note in the relevant sections, which seemed perhaps less effective. It seems that it is indeed commonly accepted to strike comments in active discussions, and that makes a lot of sense to me if the purpose is to discourage abuse and disruption of Wikipedia by sock puppetry. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Yep. And thanks for the ping, Rhododendrites. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Why duplicating "support" by the same user? Thinker78 (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • ? Do you think that I wrote the above because I was mentioned in the comment? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes. :P Thinker78 (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I think there could be some discretion. If the sock is heavily pushing a point (not unlikely given it’s a block evasion), then the comments are sorta !votes and should be stricken. If the sock started the section, and is arguing a point where all other editors are opposed, just hat the section with a note it was a sock. Strike anything uncivil. If the edits are innocuous or unlikely to sway, and there are rather a lot of them, meh. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Responding to Thinker78 above, blocked socks are not allowed to answer a question like "how do I properly format an edit?" They are blocked, and that does not mean "no edits unless you have something useful to say". The only reason not to remove everything outright is because it would damage context in many cases. There is little benefit to discretion in this case, and it would add an unwarranted degree of complexity. Thanks for caring about maintaining PAGs-to-practice agreement, that is not done nearly enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • If the sock is blocked then yes, but my point is if the sock is not blocked or the comments were made before it was blocked. Thinker78 (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Accounts are not blocked, except from a technical standpoint. People are blocked. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • If the sock is blocked, it's literally unable to comment, so all of the comments would be before the sock is blocked. The point is, as it says in the edit you reverted, we're talking about socks of editors editing in violation of a block or a ban. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I think Thinker78's meaning is that we might not need to strike constructive or helpful edits the sock made before being detected and blocked. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's what I mean. Thinker78 (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - but that could end-up being an awful lot of comments depending on when the sock is exposed. Also, is there a way the user name be stamped SOCK over the top of it instead of just a line through showing they're blocked? That would cover those comments we overlook (and maybe save some work striking). ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not without a software change, which generally requires a phab (WP:PHAB) request, which generally requires a consensus at a place like WP:VPT. Even then there's no guarantee. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It could be a lot of comments, but since it only applies to active discussions, it shouldn't typically be too many to handle, I think. At least not often. It's a good question, though. I should point out that the line through the name is also a preference that's not enabled by default, I don't think (or at least wasn't for me). I don't know how that script works, but I imagine there's something it could just as easily look to see if the userpage is categorized as a sock puppet and reformat accordingly. That, too, would be something unlikely to be enabled by default, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

    @Mandruss:It might be possible using JavaScript, in which case it could be a gadget. No MediaWiki software change is necessary for new gadgets, and so we don't need a phab ticket either. It's not possible using CSS alone. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support It's work that I resent but I think we need to do it. I'll admit that it's something I generally do. I also remove unanswered posts. Most socks would love to have their edits untouched for others to see - we shouldn't let them have that victory. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think in many cases, ignoring comments from sockpuppets is a big loss for them: people get amped up waiting for responses, and are let down with the feeling that everyone is treating them as irrelevant. But I'll also agree that remove and ignore is the best approach to deny recognition and thereby reduce incentive to violate a ban. isaacl (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support It seems that Thinker78 misunderstands. This is not a situation where editor A is blocked, and then we execute a damnatio memoriae to strike all their prior comments. Instead, this is a case where editor A is blocked, creates sock B to evade the block, and then continues editing. We strike all of sock B's comments when we determine the socking, whether it was a !vote at an RfC/RfA, etc. I'm sure you can find plenty of talk page contributions from our blocked/banned editors A. The comments from socks B get removed or striken anywhere. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• (Just a note that this question, and the suggested modification of our wording, arose from discussion about a case of a particularly prolific sock, who survived for six months and made more than 500 edits before getting caught. During that time he participated in multiple talk page discussions, and started at least one discussion which is still ongoing.) I support the change in wording proposed by Rhododendrites, which is a model of clarity and concision. My more wordy opinion: I would like to see as our default recommendation (allowing plenty of room for discretion since circumstances vary) that sock comments in live discussions are struck, so that participants in the discussion will know they are from the sock and can treat them accordingly. I favor striking all their comments, as opposed to merely adding a note somewhere in the discussion, because striking makes it easy for the reader to identify which comments are from the sock. This refers to comments in discussions that are still live and ongoing; as stated, no need to bother striking comments in closed discussions. It is within discretion to simply delete comments which have not been replied to. It is also within discretion to hat a discussion that the sock started, but generally this should only be done if the sock’s viewpoint was not supported by others. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  That's a lot of ifs and unlesses, and I wonder whether that much complexity is really needed. Please develop a flowchart or decision table to make the decision process accessible to ordinary editors, unless you propose to restrict the handling to admins. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support to avoid giving false legitimacy to discreet block evaders such as the case that prompted this edit. — JFG ^talk 11:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - With 10 in support and no opposes (unless you count NE Ent's comments below?) after 11 days, with nothing for the past several, it seems this should be reinstated. Objections? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• And with another couple weeks having gone by with no additional comments, I've gone ahead and restored it. I've used the original wording, since that was the basis for this thread. The subthread below didn't really get much by way of responses (aside from my own), so I didn't factor it in. That doesn't mean elements of it cannot be boldly added and/or discussed further, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• The edit summary is claiming both boldness and (user) talk page consensus. You really can't have it both ways.

If one can put oneself in the perspective of a non-Wikipedian normal human being ... voting support in a section labeled "Non-voting" is fairly lame. See WP:OFCOURSE. See also these very Talk Page Guidelines, which suggest Be welcoming to newcomers

The existing

Removing or striking through "support" or "oppose" comments of editors subsequently blocked as socks. Comments with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. Striking through with a short explanation immediately after the stricken text is done when other editors have replied to the comments. e.g. Support per nom. (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)

is much better than

Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. Comments made by a sock with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. There is not typically a need to strike comments in discussions that have been closed or archived.

because:

1. the former uses less words
2. doesn't use equivocal language like There is not typically a need ...
3. "Users blocked as sockpuppets" (emphasis mine) makes it clear editors can't just go to town on editors because they think/suspect another editor is a sockpuppet.

Remember,

1. Active Wikipedians know the rules -- actually they know existing practices which the written rules typically lag.
2. Newcomers who are trying to do the right thing are better helped by simple direct statements.
3. Any ambiguity in policy pages becomes fodder to be argued on community discussion boards like WP:ANI

so if you wanna change the wording to be much inclusive, simply make it

Removing or striking through comments of editors subsequently blocked as socks. Comments with no replies may simply be removed with an appropriate edit summary. Striking through with a short explanation immediately after the stricken text is done when other editors have replied to the comments. e.g. Support per nom. (Striking !vote by blocked sock.)

NE Ent 00:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Re the offtopic housekeeping remark in your second paragraph criticizing the section headings... The section heading is not "Nonvoting" but rather NOTVOTE as in WP:NOTVOTE; as a general rule I never link in seciton headings. Your mileage may vary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I find the presentation of this section pretty confusing. It seems like you're putting the proposal as well as an additional proposal below the discussion (whatever the heading may be) of the proposal. I've tried to tidy it up a bit by turning the blocks of quoted and (proposed?) text into quotes.

Coming back to what it says, though, it looks like the primary differences are that you've removed "in violation of a block or ban" (which seems problematic, since edits made by a sock before the person is blocked/banned is not typically treated the same way -- perhaps it was a legitimate use of a sock until it was used inappropriately), adding the example at the end (fine by me), removing the option of a comment at the bottom of a thread (I don't think a comment after every strikethrough in a thread is necessary), and removing the bit about old discussions (this still seems sensible to me, but I would also be ok leaving in the "active discussions" qualification and elaborating elsewhere, such as WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Regardless, most of these are not huge changes. I think that once we see there is consensus for this change in general, it would be less controversial (if this turns out to be controversial at all) to add, say, the example, or to put some of it off to the essay, or to copyedit, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

permanently banned users

• Question: Should we apply the same standard to permanently banned users? (Would best be done via software marking their signature, obviously.) — JFG ^talk 11:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• For comments after the ban, support this too (I already cast a not-vote in the prior section) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Why? What's "permanently banned," anyway? Purpose of blocking / banning is minimize disruption, not put badges o' shame on folks.(We have social media and Reddit for that). NE Ent 00:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, the moment's pause inspired me to tweak my not-vote from Support to Support for comments made post-banning. The reason to leave comments pre-banning is because those are made when the ed is in good standing. The reason to apply the rule to all comments by sockpuppets and any comments post-banning by banned eds is that they are made in violation of our community standards of welcome participation... to leave them as if they speak with the full privilege of full consideration by the rest of the collaborative community is to undermine the atmosphere of consensus and civility and NPOV etc that make this place possible. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And WP:Community ban is usually permanent, absent some overwhelming show of contrition and clue-gaining. So are most administrative indefs of socks and nothing-but-vandalism vandals.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of colored text on talk pages

Should this be mentioned in the section on emphasis? Doug Weller talk 12:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I have on v-e-r-y rare occasion used colored text; no one ever complained. Is this a problem somewhere? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, nowadays we say "African-American text". EEng 12:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Like allcaps, it can distract. I saw it today used instead of quotation marks, that was pretty confusing at first. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Doug - are you proposing that it should be used sparingly and are you also including highlighting? I try to use tables with colored text to show comparisons of old text vs proposed text, and also occassionally use highlighting, etc. so it has a useful purpose. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Like Doug, I have on rare occasion been overwhelmed with excessive use of color. I think the other eds were trying to make it MORE understandable, and I think in those rare times they failed. But personally I see this so seldom I wonder it writing rules instead of dealing with it ad hoc might produce WP:CREEP more than benefit? Open mind, just asking the question about extent of problem..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Color has issues with respect to accessibility; though talk pages tend to be a dog's breakfast in that regard anyway. Really, the advice at WP:COLOR is as useful on talk pages as it is anywhere else.

• Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method.... Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information.
• Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind....

Heck, screen-dimming apps that add a deep-red filter to one's display in the evening are getting to be pretty widespread, and those are murder on color rendition and contrast.

Fortunately, adding colored text is sufficiently inconvenient to do that most editors choose simpler (and usually better) ways to draw attention to text. I'm not sure that we need to add specific CREEP to this guideline, but I welcome input from editors and users who have more experience in dealing with accessibility issues. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Gold star for considering those with screenreaders, colorblindness, and so on, TenOfAllTrades. Eventually I may learn to think of others like that, also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW I find myself distracted by highlighting/background colors much more than by colored text. Especially highlighting that extends outside of a typical line size. Would definitely support a prohibition on that, but it extends beyond this discussion a bit, I suppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Here's a great example of what to not do (even aside from the "interleaving" thing; the editor in question has been pointed to that rule): Talk:Ellipsis#"Save_As..."_style (page down to the "sea of crimson"). In general, I would agree with "the advice at WP:COLOR is as useful on talk pages as it is anywhere else"; we need not repeat much of it here, but we should at least point to it and say something like "the advice at WP:COLOR is as useful on talk pages as it is anywhere else". :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This should do it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

User talk page deletion

Are we addressing anywhere the idea that user talk pages should not be deleted (either upon request or by an admin deleting their own talk page), because it effectively destroys much of their interaction record (for everyone but the few with the power to examine deleted material)? It can make it difficult to prove various things at WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:RFARB, WP:ARCA, etc. This is even a more serious consideration than it sounds at first, because AE in particular has been known to issue boomerang sanctions in the case of a claim/accusation that isn't diffed, yet a real event (warning, etc.) may not be diffable except by a subset of the admin user group.

I don't find this addressed here or at WP:DELETION. The pseudo-section at TPG titled "Archive—don't delete" seems like it should, but is actually talking about removing thread content from an extant page, not deleting an entire page (and doesn't even apply to user talk anyway).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What about "User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users." Isn't that sufficient? The quoted text is from WP:User pages in a section called 'Deletion of user talk pages'. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess that helps dissuade users from {{db-user}}'ing their own talk pages or otherwise seeking deletion, but is very wishy-washy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The TPG, under WP:OWNTALK, now says in part -

Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. * * * User talk pages are almost never deleted, although a courtesy blanking may be requested.

The DELTALK wikilink in the quote goes to the part that Ed already quoted in this thread.

Have these provisions proven insufficient for whatever inspires the question, SmcCandlish? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, or I wouldn't've brought it up.  :-) The thing is, the page doesn't instruct admins not to delete their own talk pages. I've encountered that habit at least twice when trying to diff something. [I decline to get into the details since the disputes are stale, and in one case it would be "gravedancing" about a former admin who got blocked then quit.] There's no active dispute in which I have a concern about it right now; I just got my memory joggled about the occasional problem while trying to trace the history of changes and discussion/disputes about them at a guideline page, and it led back to one of those admins' nuked talk pages and thus to a dead end.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. The premise of being granted admin/beuacrat/etc superpowers is, or at least should be, a record on which the community can rely for placing trust and faith in that person. As a price of admission, talk page deletion by these folks should simply be prohibited, period. After their superpowers expire, then they should be treated like any other editor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. It's basically a double reason admins should not be allowed to delete their own talk pages: a) WP:ADMINACCT requires admins to be accountable, and hiding dispute about their actions impedes the ability of the community to ensure that accountability, and b) if they become a non-admin later, they should not have the "benefit" of having nuked their talk history when that would not have been available to some other random editor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

LISTGAPS mess avoidance

I thought we'd resolved over a year go to help curtail WP:LISTGAPS problems and other "list manglement", by instructing people, when making replies, that (absent a good reason not to) the thing to do is to copy the list markup of what they're replying to and add their indent or bullet or number-sign after it. E.g., if you encounter this:

* '''Delete''' – NukeEmAll 16:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
*: By why? – TheQuestioner 17:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
*:: Because:
*::# It's non-notable.
*::# It's clearly promotional. – NukeEmAll 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
*::#* I'm not sure I buy that. – TheQuestioner 19:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

And you want to reply to the last item, add your : or * after TheQuestioner's *::*, thus:

*::#** NukeEmAll's rationale seems correct to me. – YourNameHere 20:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to reply to NukeEmAll's original post, use their * followed by your bullet or indent:

*: Thanks for clarifying, NukeEmAll. I was leaning "Keep", but those are good reasons. – YourNameHere 20:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

There's probably an ideal and succinct way to put it, and having a sentence of advice on this (with or without an example) would be a great boon to accessibility, orderly talk pages, and more – people who create F'ed up lists in talk pages because they don't know better also do it in articles, where the accessibility and bad rendering issues are more important. It's amazing how many long-term editors still do not understand this basic principle.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I still see (and occasionally fix) such problems. XFD discussions are usually the worst places in this regard. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much zero of my editing days at WP do not encounter bad markup of this sort, often 20+ times per session.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"Personalities" (word in section Focus on Content)

I see no reason to have the unneeded word included in what we should concentrate on. In disputes, it is bound to cause confusion and endless discussion as to the meaning of the word "personality". I hope there is/can be consensus for removing it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Good callNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• I have to disagree on this one, though maybe "personalities" isn't the right word. No qualifier at all makes it too general a statement; addressing editor behavior and viewpoint is often necessary (though, yes, it can also frequently go too far). This page should reflect the better side of actual practice, not try to live in a fantasy land.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems we do agree that "personalities" in this context should go. Sure, sometimes I use the second person "you" in talk pages, and I think my use is generally appropriate. But its a subjective thing, and its a hopeless task to try to articulate a broad unambiguous consensus on this. Those who leap for the jugular at the first instance of "you", regardless of context, are as problematic as those who run others down with a nonstop you-you-you-you-you-you. This seems like a good case of having to trust one another to figure out where the boundaries are on the fly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well, someone like you would say that. EEng 13:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

>:) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, though, that hits the nail: If we could trust editors to do that, much of this page would not need to exist. Pages like this are very frequently cited in noticeboard actions with real potential consequences, so we can't open up a whole new wikilawyering and systemgaming loophole. There may be more than one way to close it, but just leaving it reduced to "rather than on the editors" isn't sufficient. It either needs a qualifier, or a link to something, e.g. "rather than on the editors" so that it can't rationally be interpreted as "Jimbob92 said 'The edit you made' instead of just 'the edit', so I'm gonna go to ANI". We have too much of this going on already, too much "WP:CIVIL means no one can criticize what I do or say unless they use contorted circumlocutions".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

If your concern is that you think the current text implies you can never talk about other editors, what it says is to "focus" on content, not editors. That leaves room for the occasional comment on behavior where needed. Or do I misapprehend your concern? EEng 20:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Basically, yes. I'm not suggesting that, in a careful reading, it shouldn't be interpreted the way you want it to be, but rather than we already know this kind of wording isn't read carefully or understood clearly, and given the purpose of a behavioral guideline page, we need to take steps to avoid (often willful) misinterpretation. Part of it is this: it doesn't matter whether people could successfully game this; we just know that they would try, and that this would be a productivity drain on editors who aren't being asshats.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It's easy to raise vague concerns... "personalities" isn't the right word, we've agreed about that. Can you suggest an improvement? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Already did: use a link instead of additional wording: "rather than on the editors".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, overlooked the blue link to WP:Casting aspersions. I've long thought that concept should be more than an additional "principle" espoused by the Arbs such as described in that page, but so far, it is at best implied in our "regular" rules. The page you've linked provides examples of when it becomes explicitly layered on top of everything else in an ARB ruling. If we can establish that principle in the day-to-day (non ARB ruling) WP:Policies and guidelines that would be a good thing. It would equally apply everywhere and it would be equally explicit everywhere. After that happens then I would agree its probably a reasonable basis for rephrasing this point in the TPG. Until then I'm opposed to basing the TPG off of arb-added "specialty" layers of procedure. I wonder where, in all our day-to-day policies, it would fit best? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Those of us (and only those of us?) who for years have tried very hard never (never) to address or mention another user on article talk pages have fully understood how much more delightful Wikipedia work is then, and how much more delightful it would be for all of us (all of us) if everybody did that. It can (can) be done, and it is really great. The magic that it brings, in concentrating only on article content (which I think article talk pages are all about), is almost unbelievable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess we could link to Wikipedia:Civility. Anyway, the idea is to resolved the gameability while also retaining the concision.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

When originally added, it read

'''[[WP:NPA|Comment on content, not on the contributor]]''': Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

With slight tweaks the current text reads

'''Comment [[WP:FOC|on content]], not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|on the contributor]]''': Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.

The original was added a long time ago in this edit with an edit summary saying it was supposed to be flip side of NPA. Both the original and the current link to WP:NPA in the bold part of the paragraph. Proposal - we could just repeat that link at the end, like this

'''Comment [[WP:FOC|on content]], not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|on the contributor]]''': Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|on the editors participating]].

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Would a WP:NPA link be overly narrow?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, no, that wasn't added a long time ago, at least not exactly. I edited it just the other day I'm sure. EEng 21:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The version with "personalities of" had been stable in this page since the introduction of the line in 2009.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, Newsie has modified his earlier post to correct the longstanding text, so my comment no longer applies. EEng 06:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I am very pleased with the current wording, which I think says enough to anyone in doubt as to what goes. It's bound to be very helpful now in steering away from habitual personalization of so much of our article talk. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Same here. My proposal above was intended to satisfy another ed who thought it overly broad, and then thought the change I suggested is too narrow. That suits me because my preferene is also to leave it as is. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I asked if it might be too narrow (versus, say, WP:CIVIL).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem changing the current link to NPA at the beginning of the current text to CIVIL, and adding another (new) link to CIVIL at the end. CIVIL in the nutshell bubble encompasses NPA but goes further in a positive direction. So changing the focus from NPA to CIVIL at the beginning is a good idea. A separate question is whether we should add a wikilink to the end of the mini-paragraph. I don't care, but I would like to make sure we don't create confusion over which standard applies. The simplest way to do that is to repeat at the end whichever link we use at the beginning. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Civility covers more than just "comment on contributor", though. Bah. I guess just leave it as is, since you like it that way, and SergeWoodzing does, and no one seems to care about the potential-lawyering point I was raising. Maybe I'm just "terriblizing".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Points for trying. Wish more folks would make the effort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm very alert for gaming/lawyering loopholes. I've been editing policy here for a long time, and was a professional policy analyst in meatspace, as well as a communications director, plus a coder, and I have an anthropology degree. It's a weird-ass background, but it gives me a very procedural and stepwise approach to this sort of thing, filtered through a human reactions and foibles lens. I kind of run scenario trees in my head on all this material and how it interrelates with other material, and what rationales and mis-rationales people offer, under what circumstances, etc., etc. I'm probably not "the Best" at this, but I'm pretty good at it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I looked it over again, in full context, and ended up linking it to WP:Civility, because it's otherwise just not clear in the context (to someone new to this site and what goes on here and in what interaction mode). It's also the first hint on the page about anything to do with civility/NPA and related concepts, so it's a good place to link anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I too have looked again and followed the link, which I feel unnecessarily complicates the matter now. Must we have a link?. Editors who habitually (love to?) argue with others on article talk pages, "you did this, you did that, that's wrong, you're being ridiculous etc etc etc" rather than just sticking to the subject matter, will now be able to use the excuse/assertion/claim that they are not being "uncivil" and that in turn can lead to endless disacussions and conflicts. The wording is clear enough, I think, as " ... rather than on the editors participating." Is it really necessary to link there at all? Why must we factor what is civil, or uncivil, or maybe uncivil, or maybe not, into it? We should all just avoid mentioning or directing comments at each other on article talk pages, where those habits hardly ever are needed or constructive, and where not doing so at all is like Heaven itself. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Room should be allowed for the occassional humor, a thanks/congratulations, the respectful little things that build a community, without losing the vision that we're making an encyclopedia rather than doing social networking. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The word "focused" in there should allow for that, and WP:AGF is more appropriate that building a presumed risk of personal attacks into the language. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

But "you did this, you did that, that's wrong, you're being ridiculous etc etc etc" is uncivil. It does not require yelling "FUCK YOU ASSHOLE" to be uncivil. Treating others like idiots or crazies and making everything a personality struggle, poisoning the ability to collegially collaborate, certainly qualifies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

With recent tweaks, it now (this version) links to both CIVILITY and ASSUME GOOD FAITH, and reads

'''Comment [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Focus on content|on content]], not [[WP:Civility|on the contributor]]''': Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than [[WP:Assume good faith|on the editors]] participating.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This might be a random time to bring this up, but I've never been happy with such easter egg links. Why, for example, does on content link to WP:Dispute resolution in particular? I'd much rather just say what we need to say, and follow with explicit links e.g.

'''Comment on content, not on the contributor''': Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating. For more information, see [[WP:Dispute resolution#Focus on content]], [[WP:Civility]], and [[WP:Assume good faith]].

EEng 18:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I also dislike EGGs as Eeng said above. Proposed rewrite

Focus on content instead of other editors: With rare exceptions, discussion at each talk page should always support the purpose of the associated page. For example, at article talk pages, limit discussion to improving the article by discussing sources, how they can best be used, and ideas for style and layout. When there is a disagreement, never address other editors or talk about other editors unless you are making a good faith and civil attempt to resolve the dispute, or are making a good faith attempt to seek help from editors with particular roles or privileges (e.g., WP:Administrators).

Thoughts? (self struck) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Too much and too many links to same places, I think. I like EEng's suggestion, with no links in the guideline itself and with minimal risk of all kinds or arguments over interpretations and semantics. We must be careful to avoid more confrontation and not to create an extended battleground. People who are habitually uncivil (and there are many of us very active every day) are prone to argue endlessly and vindictively to try to prove they aren't, and they (much too) often get away with that because nobody will orka take them on. Let's keep that in mind, especially here! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Crap. Of course your is better EEng... I must have been in a hurry and only read the EGG part, not noticing you offered an alternative. Thanks for calling it to my attention SergeWoodzing.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I am filled with a warm inner glow of validation. You have my permission to continue expressing praise and admiration. EEng 15:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Forget that bucko... Focus on content, eh? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"never address other editors" in my dialect implies "Do not talk with other editors, or acknowledge their presence, and definitely not by name." EGG links are perfectly fine in policypage material; people know they are not navigating around in a million+ pages of it, and that something relevant to the contextual meaning of the linked phrase will be elucidated in the principles at the page they're directed toward. This is vastly preferable to explicit "See ..." cross-references, because the main complaint about WP:P&G material is there's just too much of it and it rambles/blather. Don't give people more TL;DR to complain about (except on talk pages; I consider it a gods-given right, demmit!). Anyway, I'll sit on the rest of it a while. Getting tired, and y'alls may still be massaging your drafts. All I cared about was not losing some kind of a clear indicating that talking about other editors and their edits, choices, arguments etc. is not forbidden or actionable – it has to objectionable talk about them, or a dwelling on them – because we already get too many false reports of alleged civility/NPA/HARASS breaches that are nothing of the sort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Album ratings

Is there any page where I can find all known rating publishers like AllMusic? I'm interested in these non-english publishers especially. Eurohunter (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I suggest that you try WT:ALBUMS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how I entered here but I wanted to add thread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Thanks for notification, it's moved now. Eurohunter (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Formatting

@Alsee: {{Shortcut}} broke the list formatting because it contains line breaks. I've removed the line breaks from Module:Shortcut, so either type of list should be fine now (I think). Jc86035 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Jc86035 I had pretty much figured out what was going on, but then I got confused as heck when I viewed my edit in page-history and suddenly the problem was gone! Hahaha. Looks like it's all solved. Thanx. Alsee (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Footnotes in talk and Template:Reflist-talk

Once or twice a month, plus/minus, I encounter a topic in an article's Talk page that is footnoted. The footnote is at the page bottom, though the section footnoted is mid-point in the article. I asked about this a couple of months ago and got the right fix on my specific request, inserting: {Reflist-talk} (with double braces -- one brace omitted for discussion's sake).

This is a minor yet regular Talk pages problem and might be worthy of added instructions or even a template adjustment. Probably this is more a problem for us mid-level editors, conscientious enough to cite our references, ignorant enough to not stick them in place. I'll strive to fix what I find from here out. But, if any of you highly capable Wikipedians can figure out where one might insert a fix regarding this... .

Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I deal with this often in science and climate pages. Bold attempt How does that look? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

To quote a template without invoking it, use the {{t}} template, for example you can talk about {{reflist-talk}} this way; I changed it in the section header. Another useful template is {{sources-talk}} which produces a collapsed list of sources, that is less distracting to the conversation when many sources are cited. — JFG ^talk 17:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I didn't know about either of those.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References are displayed at the next <references /> tag in the page, or at the bottom of the page if there is no <references /> tag after the point where the ref is used. Templates like {{reflist}} and {{reflist-talk}} contain a <references /> tag with some extra styling. So since the only issue is the absence of such a tag or template, there is really nothing that can be fixed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I pictured one of two fixes: Either modify the talk template, which you convince me (by the above) may be impractical. OR, append the talk information page so that what you have said here is more readily known there. Many people do not know that footnotes on a Talkpage are (ought to be) approached differently than footnotes in an Article.

Anyway thanks very much, Glen Buschmann

Offensive Heading?

Am I Wrong in Finding This an Offensive Heading to Be in a Talk Section? Or Anywhere Else in Wikipedia, for That Matter

I read the article about the British military commander Alan Brooke with interest. Among many other things, I learned that he was an Ulsterman from Northern Ireland. I then went to the talk page to see if there was anything of interest there. I was startled to see this heading somewhat down the page: "Why does Alan Booke look so swarthy? Moreso looks a sub-Loirean Frenchman or a cryto-Jew."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Brooke,_1st_Viscount_Alanbrooke#Why_does_Alan_Booke_look_so_swarthy?_Moreso_looks_a_sub-Loirean_Frenchman_or_a_cryto-Jew.

That seems to me to be an extremely offensive remark, based solely on what appears to me to be racial or racist prejudice. I have just gone through the "talk page guidelines" and don't see anything that pertains specifically to something like this.

Am I being overly "politically correct" about this, or do others find it as offensive as I do? Further, I note that the person who created this section did it anonymously. What, if anything, can/should be done about it? Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree, Hayford Peirce. Changed to "Identity or ethnicity". Bus stop (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! It is still an absurd question to pose (ie, should every WP article identify the ethnicity of every person for whom there is an article?), but at least now it is no longer patently racist or offensive. Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the issue! In my opinion various attributes of identity such as ethnicity and religion may be included or omitted. I don't think there can be a rule for this—just consensus on an article-by-article basis. That was a ridiculous "Section heading" that you brought to our attention, and I think there are some guidelines at WP:TALKNEW that are semi-applicable, such as "Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed" and "Keep headings neutral". They don't really address the problem but I don't think there can be policy and guidelines for everything. Bus stop (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There has been a big rise in trolling like that in Britain recently with the Brexit vote and the immigration problem and the antisemitism in the Labour party. And in Northern Ireland they divide so loyalists support Israel and republicans support the Palestinians. So I think your feelings about the title were quite justifiable. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Hayford Peirce. The header was created by IP 92.5.91.155 in December 2017, along also with this charming edit. I suppose nobody with a block button noticed at the time, and it's a little late to block the troll now. Bishonen | talk 12:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC).

Got me thinking

Crypto-Jew... Crypto-currency... MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE??? EEng 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah... just subtle marketing for Krypto. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not the right venue, really

Personally, had I seen this post right away I would have moved it to user talk, and directed the OP to DR, HELPDESK, TEAHOUSE, and ANI. WIthout studying it, my gut says there's been an uptick in people complaining about specific disputes on this page, and it is not the right place to do that. I wish regular page watchers would help bar the gates or we'll be doing ANI like stuff everywhere eventually. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiMedia PolicyMakers: Talk page banner directs editor to bottom of page

My idea.. not sure this will reach the policymakers/decisionmakers and actual hard-coders behind the wiki website properties.. Why not near the top of EVERY Talk (discussions) page, once someone enters into editing mode, display a red or yellow background rectangular banner at the top reminding commenters to add to the BOTTOM of the wiki text/code, and not to the top? My two cents. :) Vid2vid (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)