Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WP:TPG#Non-free images[edit]

It might be a good idea to change the name of WP:TPG#Non-free images to WP:TPG#Non-free content or WP:TPG#Non-free files. While the majority of non-free files uploaded to Wikipedia is probably image files, there are audio files as well. This change would make it clear that this sub-section applies to all non-free content, not just image files. The relevant content would also need to be tweaked accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a good idea, as quoting non-free content is something allowed per policy, as is limited use of other non-free content, at least in namespace. Thinker78 (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Edited 19:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Quoting copyrighted content on a talk page is fine, but I’m referring to cases where people have added non-free files to talk pages as part of a discussion. Usually it’s a file being used in the article that’s being discussed, but other times people have uploaded something non-free just to support a position they’re taking on the talk page as some sort of visual/audio proof. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I think now after reading the policy more that your suggestion is very valid. I suggest replacing with this text, "Non-free content: Non-free content should not be displayed on talk pages. If images are being discussed, they must be hidden by linking them with a colon—as described in 'Hiding or resizing images', above. If they are included for decorative purposes, they must be removed. Other non-free content should be removed." Thinker78 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
What I wonder is if the guideline regarding images cover all images or just non-free images. Thinker78 (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The restrictions apply to nonfree images only, obviously. Non-nonfree images are, um, free. EEng 20:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Linking to a talk page discussion[edit]

It seems that a section link to a talk page discussion (be it user talk, article talk, project talk or whatever) gets broken once that discussion is archived. If so this is a fundamental flaw as it should be easy to refer back to a discussion if needed and such links in edit summaries can't be corrected. Is there any solution or workaround to this? A way to create a permalink perhaps? --Jameboy (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jameboy: There is a parallel thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Question about breaking links. But permalinks are available: Special:PermaLink/865658540#Linking to a talk page discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Will take a look, thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What is a "Meta-Discussion?[edit]

No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace.

What are "meta discussions" and how do they apply to Talk Pages? Can anyone give any examples of what a "meta discussion" is, either actual or hypothetical. This term is totally meaningless to me.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, meta-discussions are discussions about discussions, in much the same way that metadata is data about data, or the Meta-Wiki is a wiki about the wikis. That doesn't help much, so let's look at the context.
This is in the subsection How to use article talk pages. Mainly, it means that article talk pages should concern themselves only with matters specific to that one article. If you want to discuss, for example, a general matter about a particular user's behavioural pattern over several articles, that is not a matter for an article's talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Intersperse/interleave links[edit]

Currently WP:INTERSPERSE goes to the § Layout section, just like WP:TOPPOST and WP:BOTTOMPOST. WP:INTERLEAVE goes to the § Editing others' comments section, which is a separate idea. It's not listed in the convenience-links box there. And "intersperse" and "interleave" are fair lay-language synonyms. Can someone work in a cross-linking of these two ideas? Or unify them? It's not obvious that interleaving a reponse to paragraph one of a three-paragraph parent post is editing that parent post vs just threading/layout games. DMacks (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for clarification[edit]

In [this] section, in the point fixing layout errors, am I allowed to replace <font> tag to <span> tag as part of removing obsolete HTML tag errors without informing the specific user?Adithyak1997 (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if there has been a discussion somewhere showing that such a cleanup is desirable. An edit summary should link to that discussion. If the user reverts, don't repeat but seek assistance. Johnuniq (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)