Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Should "Talk page guidelines" and "Talk page" merge?

With the recent move of Help:Talk page to Wikipedia:Talk page, I note that we now have two pages in the Wikipedia namespace with very similar content. As things currently stand, Wikipedia:Talk page is just an abbreviated version of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The argument could be made that anything beyond the technical description of that "discussion" tab at the top of the page ultimately falls under the heading of "guideline", in which case, having separate pages doesn't really get us anywhere. On the other hand, sometimes having a "short version" and a "long version" can be useful. Thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think two separate pages are appropriate, but not "shorter" and "longer". Rather, one should be more technical, the other (this one) should cover (mostly) what not to do, plus things like refactoring a talk page. If all of that were on one page, I think it would be way too long. Plus it's good to be able to point newbies to the basic/technical page first. John Broughton | ♫ 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What John said. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be merged. It is hard enough to find information on this topic without it being split between two pages.--GFLewis (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages and general discussion

Can we somehow clarify that talk pages are not for general discussion of the article's subject, but for discussions about the article itself? In 2 instances, someone will make a post on the talk page ("hi (celebrity), I really like you!" or "do you think this show is cool?") and I have simply and clearly stated the rules - "Welcome to Wikipedia, but the talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject matter, but on how to improve the article." Twice now I have been challenged - one admin told me to lighten up (can't remember the admin's name) and one anonymous IP-only user told me people can say anything they want on the talk pages. I linked them to this page, but can we perhaps clarify and strengthen this page that talk pages are not a general forum? Is there a template for talk pages that says they aren't a general forum? Kat, Queen of Typos 15:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views" is in bold as the second sentence of this project page. Section 1.2 states "Talk pages are not for general conversation". I don't see how it could be made any clearer. • As far as a template goes, look at the top of this talk page at {{talkheader}}. When put on an article talk page, the phrase "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject" will appear. —DragonHawk (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages

Is there a central discussion for the purpose and policy of user talk pages? I would like to clarify when its acceptable to remove comments from a user talk page, and would like to argue user talk pages be fairly open to removal based editing by users. Specifically

- currently, its ok to remove negative or nonsense posts to user talk - its not ok to edit the text of someone else's statement, especially to reflect someone else's views - between these two poles is a lot of abiguous language; its suggested that old posts be archived, but I would like to hear why. Discussion that is not directly connected to an article enough to merit discussion on that article's talk page seems either too irrelevant or too personal to be the subject of 'permanent record'

- I feel that in general it should be a user's perogitive to delete comments, since many take the form of quick messages with only incidental and contextual meaning, and since, if a user wanted to effectively achieve the same effect, they could just start a new account.

wgh 00:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC) - dialectric

I strongly recommend taking the discussion to WP:USER, which covers user talk pages. I'm going to try to make it clear that this policy does not cover user talk pages. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, John. Wikipedia:User talk page redirect to Wikipedia:Talk page. If the policy doesn't apply to user talk pages, then why does the former link to the latter? One of the problems is that there is no clear policy directed toward user talk pages. As far as Wikipedia policy stands, it appears that this policy does apply to user talk pages. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was customary on Wikipedia that users should not delete comments from their own talk page but should only archive them. This is so that there is a record of complaints against the user, available for reference for example if they apply for admin status. However, now I can't find anything about that in the Wikipedia guidelines. I can't find anything at all about user talk pages. There's policy about talk pages which focuses on article talk pages, and there's policy about user pages which focuses on main user pages. There needs to be a clear guideline. Either it is or it is not acceptable to delete a complaint against oneself from one's own talk page. I prefer that it not be acceptable. However, the important thing is to clarify the situation so that all users have the same expectations. --Coppertwig 14:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You'll find a recent, full discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#User blanking own talk page (February 7th discussion; I note because sections are eventually deleted, not permanently archived, so page history is the only source of older discussions). To summarize: it is acceptable to delete warnings; warnings can still be found by looking at the user contributions page (user edits of his/her own user talk page) or the user talk page history.

I have also added some text from Wikipedia:Vandalism, which does discuss removal of text on user talk pages, to WP:USER. Unfortunately the language at WP:VAND says "frowned upon", which I consider sort of trying-to-have-it-both-ways, but I left that in because I didn't want to be accused of trying to sneak in a change in policy under the guise of putting information in a more accessible/expected place. I'll leave it to someone else to propose changing that. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK to correct grammar on the comments of other on one's own talk page? Since it's my page, as long as I'm not changing their meaning, I don't see why it would be a problem except that it might hurt their pride. I understand having that policy on article discussion pages, and it'd be rude to edit comments on another user's talk page, but it's difficult as a grammar freak to have to see incorrect spelling/grammar/punctuation on my talk page. I'd like feedback on this. Thanks.--Grendlefuzz 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Setting up a talk page for a future but not yet created article?

I was hoping this page would discuss the role of talk pages if an article does not yet exist. I'd been in the habit of using a template Template:Future article talk page, to start a talk page before an article is created. After applying the template to the talk page, I'd use the talk pages to post what source links I had, why I thought an article should exist here, it's notability, etc.. It seemed that wiki policy at the time served created talk pages before the article was created, if the talk page served to help create a notable article.

Either I misunderstood wiki policy of the time, or it has changed since. The template got deleted, etc. The primary reason for the deletion was the possibility of abuse I think. I still don't see that as likely, by applying a template and categorizing future article talk pages it was easy to track them, and delete them if abuse became an issue. I'd been using said template for months, I didn't see a significant amount of abuse happen.

Anyway perhaps this page should clarify wikipedia's policy on talk pages that for articles that do not exist yet, or were deleted, for each of the possible methods of deletion. Thanks. Mathiastck 17:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point; I've changed the title of this section to make the issue stand out a bit. In the meantime (and I know it doesn't address the question), you could use Subpages to make notes about future articles. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 18:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the positive impact :) I'm trying to start a larger debate on talk pages, what they should and should not be used for, and why we ever have to delete them. I think subpages would be useful if I just wanted to store my personal notes... but I'll just store those offline I think. I was hoping to engage in a wiki process designed to request articles while collobarting in their first creation. Mathiastck 11:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see an argument for starting talk pages for yet-to-be-created articles, as a discussion forum. I suggest that since you're not getting any reaction here (except for us chickens), you post something at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), saying that you think this might be a good idea, and what do others think? Then, based on that reaction, you can consider the steps laid out in Wikipedia:How to create policy. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 02:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Again you have provided a lot of positive direction for me :) Thanks! Mathiastck 15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing comments on talk page

Is the removal of other editors' comments on talk page appropriate? I take the view that it's all right to do so in case of obvious vandalism, but how about personal attacks or personal-attack-like arguments? This guideline doesn't mention the issue, so I bring the question here. Comments? PeaceNT 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a similar question, concerning deletion of comments that contain no personal attacks or such from one's own talk page. It happened to me (someone deleted my posts from his/her talk page), and I'd like to know if any guideline offers anything to that respect or if it is anyone's right to decide what to have on their talk page, even if it's about normal discussions (a content dispute, in my case). —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, found this, where it says: "On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon." Answers my question but not PeaceNT's, I take it. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that a user is at liberty to remove comments from his own talk page, but when it comes to the article talk page, this is another issue. Many talk pages have the warning "no personal attack" at the top, but when edit wars take place, people simply aren't calm enough to carefully choose their words and as a result they may accidentally throw in some forms of insults making their arguments sound rather offensive.

The problem is that another editor would then come and remove those comments on the ground that they are personal attacks. Personally I don't think it's an appropriate action to take since removing comments would ruin the flow of the discussions. These arguments may sound rude, but they're still the legal part of the debate, which is why they should stay there to keep the debate going.

Having looked through Wikipedia:Removing warnings and Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks but not finding a specific guildeline on this matter, I'm still quite confused. I hope that someone would kindly help me clarify the issue. Thanks PeaceNT 05:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I more or less feel the same. Negative reviews and slanderous comments can be potentially harmful in long run. But how to make out these comments are personal attacks and not real facts? Does Wikipedia provide any guidelines for this? Thanks. gypcywoman 06:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC) gypcywoman

My personal take on it, not every personal attack or whatever should be removed, but we shouldn't really worry about saving discussion that doesn't help a heated situation. If someone does remove something they should note it in some way so that replies and such will still make sense. Personally, I find it very helpful of they remove the comment, say they removed the comment, and then provide a diff so people can see the comment with a link. That way a heated comment isn't "in your face", but is still easily accessible if someone needs to understand certain parts of the conversation flow. That being said, I think we shouldn't be proactively seeking to remove comments and just remember that people can say things in the heat of the moment, etc, and it's really not a big deal.. but whatever. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like no other editors would comment on this, so ultimately I take the view that we can only remove things on talk pages if they are purely vandalism or personal attacks, in case of arguments which include an affront and may potentially be offensive (and considered as personal attacks), however, we should let them stay to serve the ongoing discussions. Hopefully I get it right. PeaceNT 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got it right, but may I suggest a slightly different approach. The guidelines say The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Something that is vandalism, solely a personal attack, or is wikichat (discusses the subject of the article - George Bush rocks! George Bush stinks! whatever!) is a violation of the guidelines because it's not about improving the article. So cite WP:TPG in the edit summary - "Removing comment that is not about improving article, violates WP:TPG guidelines" and take it out.

That means that that comments that are a mix of constructive arguments (in theory; you may think they're stupid, but that's not relevant) and personal attacks should be left as is, or edited very selectively, if for example one paragraph is nothing but a personal attack. Bottom line - where another editor is obviously misusing the talk page, shift the proof to that other editor that their comment, which you removed, was in fact about improving the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is related to the last point, is there a contradiction or another reason for removing comments missing in these guidelines? In the "Editing Comments" section it says "Editing others comments is generally not allowed. Exceptions are..." and goes on to list those exceptions, and doesn't say anything like "if the comment is wikichat" or "if the comment is unsourced rumor" or "is not discussing improvement of the article", it may be removed. But in the "Central Points" section it says "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." So which is it? --64.149.40.132 08:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing or changing one's own comments

Currently, the wording on this page forbids removing one's own comments, even before anyone answered. I find the reasoning that "someone may still have read what you have written" ridiculous - by the same token, we shouldn't change any of our articles, because someone might have read the old version. How did this severe wording get in there? Was there any consensus for it? — Sebastian 08:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I now was bold and edited it. (The original change, was, according to the talk, somewhat bold in the spirit of WP:BRD.) I also added some recommendations for interruptions. Interruptions happen, and from my experience it helps reading talk pages when they're tagged with {{interrupted}}. — Sebastian 21:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I support this change. I believe it is appropriate to strike a balance between avoiding confusing others and not interfering with editors' habits of self-correction. I agree there shouldn't be a prohibition on edits that are unlikely to have been previously relied on or whose change won't result in confusion. Changing edits shortly after they appear or to correct simple typos shouldn't be problematic. Policy should intrude on people's ordinary habits only where necessary to achieve an important goal. This is particularly true when habits which usually benefit the project and should usually be encouraged, such as people's desire to correct mistakes, are involved. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We should encourage correction, and discourage removal of any comment that has been replied to. Mathiastck 01:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another reason to change one's own comments

So far, this page assumes that people only change their comments to remove incivility. However, we have more civil than uncivil talks, and in such cases there often arises a need to change comments, too. I therefore propose the following addition:

Sometimes you may want to change a comment to clarify it or to remove a misunderstanding. In such cases, you can add: "Amended to (reason), ~~~~" after the signature.

I've done this several times, especially when a reply made me aware that my comment lead to a misunderstanding that distracted from my point, in which case I wrote something like "Replaced A with B; thanks to (replier)'s clarification below." — Sebastian 21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of misunderstanding, you could simply strike the words and add the modified version of your comments. There's no need for a strict guideline on this matter. PeaceNT 11:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning soapbox behaivor.

I currently have an interesting situation going on on a talk page that I watch. An anon is trying to raise a rabble there and argue for his particular position as if it were a forum. I have explained to him many times that the material he is presenting does not qualify for inclusion under Wikipedia:Attribution, however I no longer think he even wants to edit the article, he just wants to argue as if it were a forum. Since the beginning of my tenure editing here on wikipedia, I have noticed an extreme sacrosanctity of talk pages, so although if this were on the article I could easily just remove it, since it is on a talk page that might be considered bad taste. What exactly are the policies on talk page propoganda? Is there a simple way to get him to just be quiet? Thanatosimii 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't respond to him. --64.149.40.132 08:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Page Guidelines

Can somebody explain to me why it is thought helpful to call the guidelines for what should happen on the Discussion Page the "Talk Page Guidelines" as opposed to the "Discussion Page Guidelines". Within an editing set-up which appears to have a policy for everything it would be extremely helpful to those trying to find their way about if items were named correctly.

Any chance of either changing the name of the Guidelines or the name of the tab currently identified as "Discussion"? One or the other should really be changed to avoid confusion.Cosmopolitancats 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages of historical articles

I had posted this issue here and it was suggested I cross-post to hee as well. The question is, should we be suppressing any attempt to use the Talk page in historical articles? Thanks. Wjhonson 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"should be suppressing any attempt to use the Talk Page" I hope you jest. jae 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

gara spelling

gara or gaara or garaa or eney other spelling of (what i think is corect) gara is all right Billi bob jo bob 16:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) bob

the cheat

dude And yin

i dont understand what you're saying. could you tell me plese? 88.108.101.6 14:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on removal of talk page comments

What do we do with nonsense and other inappropriate types of comments on talk pages? To use a current example, a user posts things like "Bill Clinton did in fact bone Monica" on the Bill Clinton talk page, someone deletes it as inappropriate content, and another user is arguing that that removal should not have happened. Tarc 04:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is to discuss about the article, and not the topic. Anything that discusses the article can stay (although you could remove those that are too childish, like "This article sucks, delete it!", or just ignore them). Anything that discusses about the topic instead of the article should be deleted. As for that specific comment (without checking the talk page) it depends: if the context is a discussion about whether to include that information in the article, it can stay (even if it is not really productive), but if it is a new section thrown just because, it should be deleted. -- ReyBrujo 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, you could remove offensive or too vulgar comments, and ask the user to rewrite it in the proper tone expected between civilized people. -- ReyBrujo 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see also the thread "Removing comments on talk page" (above). Offensive comments on talk pages should only be removed when they are totally irrelevant to the content of the articles. Otherwise, they could be reserved. PeaceNT 11:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing newbie comments for formatting

What is the proper action in the case where a new user has created a lengthy comment on a talk page, but has incorrectly formatted it to the point where it is difficult to read. For instance, in this case, I had to re-format a user's comment before I could read and respond to it. I have added a proposed exception to the policy on editing others' comments to cover this case. Ronnotel 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What about minor editing like moving comments into a new heading? Is there a policy on that? I just went ahead and did that over here: [1] . Was that the right thing to do? DiggyG 02:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem.[2] A heading is needed to generate TOC (table of contents). Tyrenius 00:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Flat versus threaded, [mis]use of indents

Wikipedia:Talk_page#Formatting lays out a standard threading scheme where ::: is a reply to the first :: above it. This is also known as threaded discussion, It is like a tree where the conversation can split into multiple branches. The nesting of indent levels is meaningful, It makes it easy to know what message a post is responding to.

The schemes proposed on this page ( Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout ) merely seek to seperate the comment from the ones above and below it. If that is the goal, indentation is silly and a horizontal seperator would make much more sense and take up less screen space. I see alot of people in the reference desk just add an indentation level regardless of the message they are referring to so the discussion ends up looking like a triangle which is just silly.

I propose that the threaded scheme in Wikipedia:Talk_page#Formatting be explained here and those other two schemes removed. I'd also like it to mention that * shouldn't be used for comments because it ends up on a different indent level than :, breaking logical threading, and confusing the reader if other people wish to use a list in their comment. If we are going to have threaded discussions we should use indentation levels logically, if we are going to have flat discussions we should not use indent, but some kind of horizontal seperator. -- Diletante 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Any sweeping proposal like that -- especially deprecating the practice of using indentation for threading, which is quite common -- is going to need broad support from all Wikipedia contributors. That's a pretty tall order. I hate to sound defeatist, but you should know what you're getting yourself into. Anyway, the first thing you should do is bring it up at the Village pump. —DragonHawk (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean the opposite, promoting proper use of indentation not deprecating it. It is hardly a sweeping proposal, I just want this article to explain proper threading using indents. -- Diletante 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The link you provide to a section of WP:TPG discusses two approaches to indentation. The first is standard (each editor indents one further than the prior editor, until an unindent occurs); the second is non-standard, and I don't believe I've ever seen it actually used. (In other words, I believe the first "scheme" is in fact the same as the one discussed at WP:TP, and the second is radically different, rather than both schemes/systems differing from the one discussed in this policy.)

I strongly agree that the second approach be deleted from WP:TPG. However, that is best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, not here; perhaps you could start the discussion there? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are already here :D. I read the scheme in WP:TP as being diferrent from the first scheme in WP:TPG.

• WP:TP says "If a reply is made to a statement, you should add a colon to the number of colons used in the statement being replied to."
• WP:TPG says "each new post is indented by one extra colon (:)"

It is easy to read TPG as saying that the indent level of a post should be N-1 where N is the number of posts in under a discussion heading. It mentions 'sub-trees' but does not explain what that means. Of course often (as in this discussion so far) both interpretations render the same result. I think that the first scheme in WP:TPG should include language very similar to what I quoted up there from WP:TP. -- Diletante 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

← It is custom to unindent discussion fully (or to only one bullet, if bullets are being used). I do this with User:Gracenotes/Indent. Really, I don't think that it does any good to try to enforce this, and to repeatedly refactor people's talk comments, unless they're not using indentation at all. This is just a guideline, not a policy. We can make rather strong suggestions, of course. And as an aside, I would strongly suggest using

:Comment
::Another comment

Rather than

:Comment

::Another comment

since it makes the HTML source code look much neater, and implements stylistic/content consistency. (I don't think that anyone should even want to see the HTML source code for a discussion page. Remember, however, that the database only stores the wikitext of articles.) I mentioned bullets earlier. Those are standard for XFD debates, and I think that they're a valuable tool, if used correctly. And that use is:

*'''Keep'''
*:O rly?
*::Ya rly.
*:::Huh.
*::Wha?
*'''Delete'''
*'''Delete'''

This is more enforced on RFA with #, because the numbered lists are needed. Frankly, I think that this guideline is confusing, and that the Zen art of indentation should best be understood by observation. But people are clearly not observing, so... ah well. I personally find that horizontal bars separate two posts too much. It seems rather discontinuous. Gracenotes^T § 19:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know that noone is going to follow the guidelines no matter what they are. I think blank lines between comments make it MUCH easier to see where one comment ends and another begins especially when edititing, or when comments are all on the same level (which happens if threading is used properly.) I don't think that horizontal seperators are the answer either, I just mentioned them because the way many people use indentation (+1 indent per comment regardless of which comment is being replied to) is no better than using horizontal seperators, and in fact it is worse because it wastes a ton of screen space for no reason. Also can't you just use sublists (***) instead of indenting inside the list (*::) ? -- Diletante 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, here is what i mean by proper threading.

What is your favorite color? --John 00:00 Red!! --Jane 00:01 only stupid people like red. -- Chuck 00:03 Albert Einstein's favorite color was red. -- Alice 00:04 No it wasn't, he liked blue -- Bob 00:06 I'm not stupid! --Jane 00:05 Please no personal attacks -- Dave 00:20 Green is the best. --George 00:10 Why do you like green? --John 00:11

-- Diletante 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The indentation proposed on this page is not in line with wikipedia or internet practice, so I am removing it. We use threading. --Kim Bruning 15:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I object! I use both styles (threaded and per-user indenting) at various times. The benefits of threaded discussion are well discussed, but I'd add that when a long discussion involves several users and is along one line (e.g., Talk:R._C._Sproul,_Jr.#NPOV), per-user indentation is easier to read since it doesn't wastes space and scrunch replies on the side of the screen. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "per-user indentation", as described in this guideline, is as follows:

What is your favorite color? --John 00:00 Red!! --Jane 00:01 only stupid people like red. -- Chuck 00:03 Albert Einstein's favorite color was red. -- Alice 00:04 (to Chuck) I'm not stupid! --Jane 00:05 (to Alice) No it wasn't, he liked blue -- Bob 00:06 Green is the best. --George 00:10 Why do you like green? --John 00:11 (to Chuck) Please no personal attacks -- Dave 00:20

How does that not "waste space and scrunch replies on the side of the screen" as compared to rational threading? in addition, it creates confusion (the indications of who's being addressed, which I added where necessary, won't always be included by users) —Random832 14:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Goddess Rosemary

I would be dissapointed to see her page deleted. She's been a part of the NYC subculture for a substantial amount of time.I coninue to see her image on the web, she's a beautiful lady inside and out. Thousands of fans follow her with each phase of her journey. The first place people tend to go is Wikipedia and if she's not here...well then, how else could we find her?

I hope you decide to keep her. Baywitch 17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We're more likely to keep her if you go to Goddess Rosemary and follow the link to the deletion discussion, then add your comment there.

This page is to talk about a guideline in Wikipedia regarding how talk pages should be used, it's not a general messageboard for posting questions and comments about other matters. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

introduction of moose

My son is doing a heritage project for his grade eight fair, and has decided to write about the moose in Newfoundland. Although we have found tons of information about our moose, we cannot pinpoint exactly whose decision it was to introduce the moose to our province. I'm sure it was because of the people's demands, but who made the decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.42.212 (talk • contribs)

Your question is probably better suited to ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. I'll post it there for you. --Kyoko 21:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy

Is there a policy on not editing other editors posts on talk pages? This is regarding just a regular post, not a personal attack or other prohibited editing. The editor who edited my comments used the excuse that I changed my own post after he responded to it, so he felt justified in "restoring" my original version. My "change" was actually on the order of fixing a typo, nothing that changed the context of the original post. I've taken the issue to ANI, but was wondering how strong the prohibition against editing another's talk page post was. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I felt it changed the context of the post (and it was a wording change, not a spelling fix). Why don't you just provide the diff instead of giving your spin? --Minderbinder 14:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm asking a general question. I'm looking for that policy you asked me to find, remember? Your own spin is that my change somehow changed the context. I'd like you to show me exactly where that context change was. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)\

For anyone interested, I've asked for more on this purported context change here: User_talk:Minderbinder#Context_change. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC) This was the response. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice

Use English: it has to be stated clearly that the responsiblity for translation is on the person leaving a comment in a non-English language. Other editors should not be expected to have to do this. Furthermore, if a non-English posting is accepted as such, it could lead to problems, where a message is posted with critical content (BLP/legal issues come to mind) and is ignored because no one else gets round to doing a translation. Tyrenius 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your revision is fine for me. I don't want to get rid of the provision requiring that talk page comments be in English, I just wanted to modify it so it didn't come across as hostile. I think the changes so far achive that. Cheers, Black Falcon 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bullets vs colons

In the part about indentation, Tyrenius recently added the sentence "Normally colons should be used, not bullet points." While I prefer that style myself, and in my experience that does appear to be the more popular style, I know there are those who prefer bullets instead. Given the immediately previous sentence is "Any indentation system is acceptable.", I am concerned that the new sentence lacks consensus. For the new sentence to be valid in this guideline, there would have to be widespread agreement throughout Wikipedia that colons are the proper from to use in most situations, and I'm not sure that exists. At most, it's a sort of "implicit consensus", which may or may not be what's right. I'm going to take that remark out pending commentary by others. • So, Others: What do you think? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not something new. It is simply clarifying what is already said, namely "There are two main systems". Both these systems use colons. It is furthermore virtually universal to use colons, so the statement "Normally colons should be used, not bullet points" is correct, because this is the normal usage. Furthermore, when someone puts a bullet point in a thread, it interferes with the normal sequencing, and as already stated, "The important thing is that the sequence of talk should be easy to follow." The sudden intrusion of a bullet point makes it harder to follow. The statement I inserted doesn't prohibit bullet points, but it does mean that new users will be pointed to the proper use of the "two main systems". Now can we put it back in please? Tyrenius 23:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that colons are the more commonly encountered system. My objection is that, the way I was interpreting the guideline, "Any indentation system is acceptable" meant that bullets were equally acceptable. I know there are those who prefer bullets. It's kind of a NPOV thing. With this addition, I can foresee the people who prefer bullets being challenged with a reference to this page, saying, "See? It says you should use bullets." The bullet-fans would then have the legitimate complaint that this addition was made without prior discussion. • I completely agree that new comments should continue the style already used in the thread. If the thread has been using colons, one should continue to use colons. Likewise, if the thread starts off with bullets, one should continue to use bullets. I cannot see anyone objecting to statements to that effect. • Feel free to put it back any time you like. I'm not going to battle over this. I just wanted to foster discussion. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen a talk page discussion conducted entirely using bullet points in a consistent way. I have only ever seen them popping up awkwardly in the middle of a thread which has started with colons and thus making it more difficult to follow. I am not talking about *fD discussions etc, which are not talk pages anyway, where bullets are the norm, but their talk pages still use colons. NPOV only applies to article content. Guidelines follow practice: they don't dictate it. The line I added acknowledges the overwhelming consensus of existing practice. The bullet fans are welcome to quote "Any indentation system is acceptable". I've put "are used" instead of "should be used". Tyrenius 01:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for listening. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

semi protection status

Hello, I don't see any recent edit wars, so this page can safely be unprotected. --Kim Bruning 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Editing others' comments on your own talk page"

I have boldly updated the section on editing others' comments. It previously read "Editing others' comments (except on your own user talk page) is generally not allowed." That indicates to me that, on your own talk page, it is even acceptable to directly edit the comment of another person to change its meaning (as opposed to outright deleting it). For example, changing "Please stop vandalizing" to "You're so freaking awesome" and leaving the sig intact as if that is what the original user posted. Obviously, that is unacceptable. And even though the previous sentence reads "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning", the parenthetical appeared contradictory and needed clarification.

Instead, I have removed that parenthetical and added the following to the list of exceptions: "On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment."

I believe this change is uncontroversial and reflects current community consensus, but if someone disagrees and reverts, let's please discuss here. Thank you, Satori Son 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good clarification to me. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove "directly", it's a meaningless added word. Otherwise it sounds like you can "indirectly" edit the comments. Wjhonson 20:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Aramaic?

Should Aramaic be added to the list? It has ~445,000 speakers according to Wikpedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic

Ca hikes 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC) ca_hikes

Spamming?

In Talk:Left-wing politics an anonymous user added 15kb of negative quotes from Marx, Engels, and "other Leftists." [3] He didn't write any comments. Is this acceptable and in accordance with Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines? Vints 11:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. He made the remark, "The Wikipedia article claims that to be on the Left is to be Anti-War, Anti-Racist, and Anti-Imperialist Here are a few quotes from Marx and Engels (make up your own mind)". Tyrenius 01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page purpose

The guideline current states "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."

Firstly policies that apply to articles do *not* apply to talk space. This guideline cannot supercede the policy pages themselves and they specifically state that they do not apply to Talk space. I suggest this portion be removed "..., and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research." The rest of the paragraph states exactly what the original intent was, to disallow talk space from being used as a personal platform. Wjhonson 01:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please cite where each of the 3 policies specifically states they do not apply to talk pages. Tyrenius 01:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tyrenius. All policies are for every page and they only allow for leniancy when on your own user page or your own talk page as per the guidelines on those. SanchiTachi 01:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You too can agree all day, but it simply has never been the case that the policies have ever been applied to Talk pages. Wjhonson 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying editors are welcome to argue points that do not in any way meet the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR on a talk page? Tyrenius 01:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We already fixed this under #policies?. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical and format standards

I just made a few edits to the technical and format standards section, mostly to make it shorter and more readable. The main problem with the section was that the audience it addressed was unclear - most of the text was addressed to new Wikipedians, but it contained very advanced/difficult information as well.

A lot of text was removed, but the information and purpose is intact. By this method the most important sections get the most attention.

Something I want to throw into the group is a name change: the current section seems to be named like a chapter in the FORTRAN documentation. What about something simpler, like "Formatting" ?

--User:Krator (t c) 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

policies?

"A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."

I understand the importance of keeping such values in mind at all time, but they are far from the same standard on the talk page as they are on the article. Keeping things on topic, and not turning things into a soapbox, is pretty much all you need to do. This suggests that if you introduce a little OR or non-NPOV in your statements that it's somehow wrong, or that you've done something wrong. This definitely needs to be reworded to avoid confusion. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Obviously what we want to avoid is people posting to talk slabs of content that they intended to put into the article but couldn't because of the content policies. Material that arises in the course of discussing what ought to go in an article, that would not be allowed in the article itself, is not a problem. --bainer (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The section in question strikes me as blatantly wrong; talk pages are (and should be) held to different standards then article pages. The whole first paragraph should probably be removed. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand. Why "should be"? Under what circumstances is it desirable for editors to insert unverifiable and/or non-neutral text into talk pages? Jakew 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Two examples:

• Interpretation of ambiguous sources. Interpretation should be by consensus, but may not be supported by any reliable sources. Homer has been interpreted by many reliable sources. Today's newspaper article in the NYT has not been. Simple discussions on semantics ("Did the author mean abhor or just dislike?") often contain unverifiable content ("The author is from the Bronx (uncited), and people from the Bronx never use the word abhor (uncited)") and original research. ("In another article of the same author, he used the word again in another context, which makes the meaning clear.") In cases like this, unverifiable content and original research on talk pages can definitely improve an article.
• Age-old POV disputes where the Wikipedia article describes both sides of the conflict, and thus the article uses multiple points of view, in for example different sections. Maintaining NPOV when discussing such a section is neigh-impossible.

--User:Krator (t c) 15:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something along the lines of "Editors are given reasonable latitude on the talk pages as long as they are making an effort to improve the article" but it's already there. People who know to keep things on topic and not soapbox probably don't need the talk page guidelines anyway. Friday (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold again, and tinkered with the wording. The current version, as of my last edit, looks like:

"A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages. Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies all apply to talk pages, although not as strictly as in an article page; there is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."

Any comments? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 19:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is an improvement. However, can I suggest removing "(if not to the same extent)"? It seems unnecessary given that the following sentence contains "although not as strictly as in an article page". Jakew 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)