Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Guideline order?

Here's the current order of the guidelines:

  • Avoid markup
  • Communicate (don't repeat yourself)
  • Assume good faith
  • Sign your posts
  • Use indenting
  • Separate discussion topics
  • Proceed vertically
  • Voting
  • Feel free to ignore typographical conventions
  • Make links freely
  • Don't misrepresent other people
  • Archive rather than delete
  • Summarize discussion (or refactor)
  • Keep to the topic
  • Use UTC
  • When discussing the name of the page, cite the current name

As I've said in a comment, I'd like to order these in order of importance, but have no idea which is more important then the others. Anybody have any ideas of how to order these? --Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 22:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I'm planning to merge this with Wikipedia:Wikiquette and perhaps push back some to Wikipedia:Talk page, since there is a lot of redundant content all around. --Beland 06:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please, don't. I created the second incarnation of this page (the one that contained all the material formerly found at Wikipedia:Talk Page) for a reason: The material I moved here was overshadowing the rest of Wikipedia:Talk Page (which really deserves to be more about the "How Do I Do This?" end of things then about Best Practices), and Wikipedia:Wikiquette wasn't the place for much of this stuff. (I view this page as being about Best Practices, while Wikiquette is more about "This is the stuff that ignoring can get you into trouble".) --Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 13:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Use of HTML comments

I've encountered a case where a fellow uses HTML comments on talk pages, which may subtly change the meaning, clarify or otherwise add to what he's saying. Trouble is, being in HTML comments they're only ever seen by whoever edits the discussion in order to respond. Has anyone else encountered this? If so, perhaps it should be in our talk page guidelines as something to avoid. It may be cute, but it isn't really a good way to communicate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As someone who on occasion do this I'm not clear on what the problem is. If it's used to add parenthical comments, and in places where it can be safely presumed to be seen, it's innoffensive.
  • An example on a talk page - "Just a reminder to close the AfD when you speedy something. "
If it's used as a way to make incivil remarks or PAs, there's no problem as these pages don't say "in plain site".
  • This is an attack, and should be treated as such - "Please examine the policy rearding the GFDL of this photo. "
It's thus only a problem if it's used in some was to attempt to mislead editors who don't click "edit". What would be the point, and I can't actually think of an example.
brenneman(t)(c) 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Well anyone reading the above would be very puzzled by it because it doesn't make sense unless you can read the HTML comments--which you cannot, by and large, on most web browsers, in normal browsing mode. I just don't see the point of doing this; as can be seen (or rather, not seen) above, it impedes communication. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Tony Sidaway. I think HTML comments in talk pages might need to be considered harmful. Remember that the entire purpose of a Talk page is communication. The exchange of ideas and information. Obscuring some of one's commentary on a talk page (even when done in good faith) is directly counter to that goal. So why do it? Keep in mind that not everyone reading a talk page is going to edit it, not should we inspire a trend to start editing every page to look for obscured comments.
About the only time I think it make sense to use HTML comments in Wikipedia are as explict direction to other editors. Things like "Please remember to do such-and-such when you edit this" and things like that. Even then, I would tend to favor their use only in main articles (which should not have such direction visible normally). Talk pages can -- and maybe should -- have any instructions visible. --DragonHawk 17:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned comments

Maybe there should be a paragraph on here explaining the unsigned template? I only bring it up because I don't know how to use it, and I don't know where to find an explanation! This seems like the place for it, if anybody cares to add that. --ParkerHiggins | Talk 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of aiding this user: it's easy if you know templates; to wit:
{{unsigned|Nobody}} becomes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nobody (talk • contribs).
Hope this helps. (And no, I don't think this belongs in the article.) Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcing the Guidelines

The talk page Talk:Stanley Hilton has a long all-caps rant about how bad Stanley Hilton is. Is it appropriate to delete things like this which go against the guidelines? --ScottAlanHill 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know an answer to this question as well. The talk page for Sonny Moore has two anonymous comments (apparently made by fans) which contribute nothing toward the development of the article. I am curious if it is appropriate to delete these comments. --Cymsdale 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing other people's Talk posts

The Talk page guidelines don't currently mention anything about deleting (except for space reasons) or fixing other people's posts (e.g. spelling) on Talk pages; what's the consensus about this? --ScottAlanHill 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, it is the rare editor indeed who objects to spelling and formatting fixes. --maru (talk) contribs 03:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
As a new user, I have made two recent edits, before reading this guideline, to remove offensive flamewars from other people's comments. In both cases I left the substantive points intact and left text indicating what I'd done. I won't do it again but I'd suggest there's a place for this.--Homunq 22:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this whole business of what can and can't be removed needs a bit more attention, also the difference in that respect between article talk pages and user talk pages. You might like to hang on in here and help towards something. Tyrenius 02:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, also sometimes it is necessary to fix others comments. I saw once comment that contained unclosed <nowiki> tag, which broke rest of the discussion. I had to fix it. You can try putting the <nowiki> in middle of your post and hittting preview (not Save please) ... rest of discussion is basically screwed up, right? The same probably goes for other unclosed tags or wiki markup.
I think the rule should be, if the post breaks any posts after it, fix it.
--Bilboq 03:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a mini-editwar at Talk:Blood of the Fold this morning regarding some "patent nonsense" that was posted to that Talk Page. A longstanding, well-respected editor deleted the patent nonsense and the deletion was reverted by User:NeoFreak. I only identify the users involved so you can read the dialogue on their Talk Pages. There was also a short exchange between User:NeoFreak and myself because I chimed in siding with Kim Bruning.

NeoFreak claims that there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that supports deletion of a user's comments to a Talk Page even if those comments constitute a misuse of the Talk Page. Kim and I disagree. Kim deleted the comments a second time and NeoFreak restored them a second time.

I would like your opinion on who is right on this question. The comments in question can be seen at Talk:Blood of the Fold. There is no disagreement about the comments being nonsense and that they are a misuse of the Talk Page. The only question is whether to let them stand or to delete them. If the edit in question had been made to an article, it would have been reverted in a flash as vandalism. The standards for a Talk Page are lower but how much lower?

--Richard 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The TPG specifically state the purpose of a talk page, so anything that doesn't fulfil that is a violation which can be removed. Tyrenius 04:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should new comments go at end of Talk pages?

Would it be helpful to add a guideline explicitly stating that new comment sections should be added at the end of a talk page, not at the beginning? This doesn't seem to be spelt out, but is partly suggested by two current guidelines in the Layout section, which read:

  • Proceed descendingly: Within each topic, the further down the contribution to talk, the chronologically later it was made. . . .
  • Separate discussion topics: Put each new conversation topic or major thread under a different section header (== Subject ==). . . . The "Post a comment" feature can be used to do this automatically.

(Note that "Post a comment" adds the new comment at the end not the start.) There seem to be many cases where people add sections to Talk pages at the beginning, and someone else then moves the new section to the end. Sometimes this is reverted (it happened to me at [1] [2]), so maybe there is dispute about the issue. It would be good if the guidelines could indicate what the preferred practice is. -- JimR 01:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, definitely at the end. --maru (talk) contribs 03:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No one has opposed the idea of a specific guideline that new conversation topics should be at the end, so I've modified the Layout section to say this. I've also re-ordered the guidelines in that section to position the one about topics first, since the order and headings for topics seem more significant than the details of what is in each topic. -- JimR 10:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the justification for putting new discussions at the bottom of the page? I think it is far more reasonable to put new discussions at the top of the page. When people go to talk, they are interested in new discussions, not old discussions. It doesn't make sense that you have to scroll through pages of old, finished discussions to reach the new ones. It is a lot more convenient to have the recent, open discussions at the top with the most visibility. --JRavn 17:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a need for an agreed on and observed convention for this. The convention has always been that, just as new postings on an existing topics go at the end of the topic, brand new topics go at the end of the talk page. This convention is so well established that it is supported within MediaWiki (in the standard skin) by the "+" link in the top bar, which adds a new topic at the end. Putting new pages at the beginning would cause confusion.
It's not the case that you have to scroll to get to the new topics at the end. If the page is short, there's not far to go. If the page has enough topics (four or more?), then there is a table of contents, and you can use the links in that to get to any topic, including the ones at the end. -- JimR 11:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using *

What about using *s to indicate a responce to a "post"?

  • A post by me
  • RESPONCE 1
  • RESPONSE TO RESPONSE 1
  • RESPONSE 2

I think it looks alot better and it's great for organizing complex discussions.--Mboverload 05:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Layout section already says:
Other indentation systems are equally acceptable and widely used (such as a threaded tree format, like that often seen in email clients).
Doesn't this implicitly cover the use of starred lists as an alternative? -- JimR 05:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess. Thanks Jim for looking it up! --Mboverload 04:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Help with a Constant Vandal

So I've recently been guarding Manna against a constant vandal, who tends to cover the entire article with Bible quote that are totally irrevelent, disturbing pictures, and endless discussions about drugs and drug experiences (he mostly believes that Manna is really psydeleic mushrooms.) We've been able to guard against most of it and revert quickly, but now he has taken up stake on the talk page. He's making it his own website in a way, putting all the things we won't let him put in the article. On a lot of his recent edits to the main article, he tells people to "See the talk page for more info." I mean, that's just wrong. See: Talk:Manna.

My question: would it be kosher to delete this stuff? It seems like a pretty inappropriate usage of a talk page.

Thanks! Sparsefarce 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline on not changing one's comments after the fact?

I've been dealing with an editor who has forsworn use of the preview button - he sometimes makes talk/AfD/etc. edits in 5-minute-instalments, changing what he's written before. Also, he has no problem with heavily editing his own previous comments, e.g. just deleting incivil comments after they've been pointed out to him. Shouldn't we have a standard prohibiting this around somewhere?

If not, are there any objections to adding the following to "other conventions"? -- Sandstein 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Do not edit existing comments. Just as in the real world, you can't unsay something once it's been said. Do not change or delete a comment after it has been saved, regardless of whether it's your own or someone else's. However, the following changes can be acceptable depending on context, provided that the substance of the discussion is not changed:
    • Making editorial amendments to your own comments (such as fixing a typo) if this is done immediately after saving the comment. (But try to use the preview button instead.)
    • Reverting vandalism and deleting personal information added without the consent of the person concerned.
    • Deleting e-mail addresses provided by inexperienced editors, in order to protect them from spam.
    • Archiving a discussion.
I think editing your own comment to remove (or at least strike) personal attacks you made and later regret is fine provided you make a note that you did so, ideally with a diff showing what exactly you did. It is useful to be able to do things like strike your vote in an AfD after somebody else has provided new information, and you acknowledge thatr your own comment is invalid. Sneakily altering your own comments in a way that makes the comments after yours look stupid is bad, though. Kusma (討論) 19:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I see no objection to retracting or modifying a comment that has not been responded to. And, what is the possible objection to editing a comment by striking out? I see no need for a note in such case -- what else could the strikeout possibly mean? How about the following?
  • Once a comment has been responded to, do not modify it in any way that would make one or more response(s) seem pointless, odd or misconceived. Generally, until a comment has been responded to, it may be withdrawn or modified; however, you should use preview to reduce the necessity for this. Some guidelines:
    • If you regret a statement, retract it by enclosing it in <s></s> so that everyone knows what was changed.
    • If you make a statement so unfortunate that you think it must be expunged in the interests of comity, insert a placeholder in the text such as, "[thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author]." The important thing is to make sure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. Of course, the authors of those statements may then wish to replace their statement with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"
    • When archiving, archive the comment and responses together so that everything makes sense. If you then refactor in the current discussion, do so fairly to all parties.
My suggestion.Robert A.West (Talk) 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, I think that just my bolded sentence would be perfect. This would be sufficient for a charge if things come to an RfArb, and minimizes the instruction creep. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I forgot to think of strikethroughs. They should be mentioned, as it's people who don't know about them who need this guideline in the first place. How about that?
  • Once a comment has been responded to, do not change it in any way that would make the responses seem pointless, odd or misconceived. You can use strikethroughs (<s></s>) where appropriate, or make your changes clear in other ways.
... my suggestion. Sandstein 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose I think the deletion of uncivil comments is commendable, and should certainly not be prohibited. Do we want to maximise strife, or minimise it? The internet fosters more incivility than any other medium due to the lack of face to face or even voice to voice contact and the lack of time delays, so people need to be able to withdraw comments they regret and indeed they should be encouraged to do so. There are massive differences between vocal comments and wiki comments, and it is wholly inappropriate to suggest that they should be treated in the same way. Piccadilly 00:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstand the point of this proposal. Of course people should be able to withdraw what they have said, or to apologise. However, they should not just delete or overwrite their statements. They should strike them out, or insert a placeholder, as proposed below by Robert A.West. The above wording makes this clear, I think. Sandstein 11:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What I think we want to prevent

Since it is improper to remove others' comments, allowing users to delete without inserting a placeholder could mean something like this. Assume a heated argument over style:

  • Obviously, we need to use Harvard Referencing, and only an ignorant slime like User B could disagree. User:Example_A
    • That was a bigoted and insulting comment, and you should apologize for it. User:Example_B

If User A then removes his comment, we are left with:

  • I think that we should use Harvard Referencing.User:Example_A
    • That was a bigoted and insulting comment, and you should apologize for it. User:Example_B

This makes User B -- the innocent party -- look like an idiot. I think this is undesirable, and fundamentally what we want to avoid. I see no objection to a placeholder.

  • Obviously, we need to use Harvard Referencing, [stupid and uncivil comment deleted]. User:Example_A
    • That was a bigoted and insulting comment, and you should apologize for it. User:Example_B

If someone has a better way to phrase this, please feel free. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with the above, but I think strikethroughs should be preferred, otherwise people will have to hunt through diffs to understand what exactly was going on. Sandstein 11:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that 99.9% of the time, strikethrough is the right answer. There are some truly offensive remarks that might be better removed altogether, and there is the occasional horribly unfortunate typo. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the relevant section to take account of the above points. Tyrenius 08:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netspeak and/or timestamps

I'd like to propose a new guideline. No netspeak, thereby improving the readability of users' comments and contributions. If any certain user is unable or unwilling to type proper English (unless English is not their first language), they shouldn't even be using Wikipedia. In most cases, English is taught in schools for a reason.

In addition, altering the (already posted) timestamps of another user's comment should not be allowed. — Nathan (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the guideline should be amended to discourage netspeak. However, if somebody just doesn't speak English well and are not working to improve it, I don't think they should be penalized, as they might not have time to improve their English. -- Where is Where? 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Edited the above to reflect this, also added timestamps. — Nathan (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a guideline about netspeak is unnecessary. If user's comments look silly and hard to understand because they use netspeak or slang, you can just tell them that without writing an instruction for it. Editing other's timestamps is already covered by editing the comments of others. Kusma (討論) 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bots spamming user talk pages

Should we just say that bots spamming user talk pages are completely unacceptable, or are there legit cases? The obvious problem is that bots won't read replies, some bots like User:Orphanbot even violate the bot policy, the maintainer doesn't watch the corresponding "user talk" page abusing it for archiving and logging. -- Omniplex 19:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page disambiguation

People interested in the Talk page guideline that it is unacceptable to edit other people's talk page postings without permission may like to have a look at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Talk page disambiguation. -- JimR 11:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a case [3]. I couldn't save a talk page because it contained a link which is on the spam black list, so I had to delete the link in order to save the page. Tyrenius 13:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your case didn't relate to disambiguation; it seems more an instance where WP:BLP overrides the normal unacceptability of editing other people's talkpage posts. -- JimR 07:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I meant it's another case where talk may need to be changed, not another case of disambiguation. Tyrenius 12:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page hell

That's the best way I can describe some of the talk pages I encounter. The cause is usually a prolonged argument over a very small matter, and it comes about because one side is, or both sides are, stating opinions with complete disregard to wikipedia policies. It is hugely counterproductive and widespread. Clearly there needs to be a clarification of what conduct is expected in order to stop this. I have therefore highlighted wikipedia policy as something which needs to be applied to talk pages. This will immediately give an indisputable guideline for people to follow — many people are certainly not following it at the moment. It will also give admins a clearly-defined way of helping to sort out raging disputes, and, if necessary, blocking editors who continue to prevent amicable editing to proceed, because of intense POV arguing. This is already implicit, but has obviously not registered in many cases.

Editors themselves also need to be empowered to address this. I have therefore put in a recommendation for the use of the {{fact}} tag. I have found already in practice how helpful this has been in certain situations, to highlight precisely where certain problems are occurring. Editors who are driven to despair on occasion by an unrelenting opinionated argument have been able to find a very simple and effective way of addressing this.

Tyrenius 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As one of the people involved in a recient debate about this matter, I thought it would be wise to comment. My opinion is that the {fact} tag could prove useful, as long as:
  • Attempts to reach concensus by discussion have broken down
  • Unsubstantiated claims are being made
  • Requests for evidence have been made and have been ignored or dismissed
and
  • A post is made after applying the {fact} tags explaining exactly why it was added
My reasoning for wanting the above is that to apply the {fact} tag, one has to edit other people's comments, which is generally seen as a bad thing. It also discourages tagging of all statements. LinaMishima 03:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to the above:

  • If there was still a viable ongoing discussion, editors would not need to resort to the fact tag anyway.
  • If claims were substantiated then it renders the tag redundant.
  • Again someone is only likely to want to use it in a situation where other discourse has been ignored.
  • The fact tag is self-explanatory — the poster considers that the statement needs verification.
  • This is not what is meant by editing other people's statements. There is no reason why any statement lacking verification should not be tagged. If people can't verify it, one has to question the validity of making it.

It would be counter-productive to put conditions on using it, as it's not going to do any harm, and will do a lot of good. Editors in a viable working relationship would probably not need it anyway, and with those who are in a dispute, I have found that its use has been extremely effective, and taken a lot of the heat out of the argument. It has a neutral anonymous feel to it and is therefore less provocative than a personal demand for something to be verified. I don't know of any reason to stop it being used at the moment anyway. Let's not bog things down in unnecessary red tape. Tyrenius 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The section in question at WP:TPG#How to use article talk pages at present reads
*Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, querying statements without references and examining the reliability of references. A simple way to query an unsourced assertion is to place {{fact}} after it, which results in [citation needed] .
It's not clear whether the last sentence means adding {{fact}} tags to articles, or to other people's talk page postings. If the former, it's correct (but out of place in a discussion of talk pages); if the latter, then as LinaMishima pointed out, it is proposing a breach of the ban on changing other people's postings on talk pages — which is explicitly (and in my view correctly) forbidden by WP:TPG#Behavior that is unacceptable. Are you suggesting an exception to that ban? Maybe this is worth considering, but if so one would want not the fact template but a talk-page-specific template for this case, which might expand to something like "[citation requested by username at date/time]". Even then, the natural response of the first poster would be to edit their original posting adding in a reference in place of the tag, which would breach the principle that "Conversations must remain to show accurately what took place." I think a better approach on talk pages is not to insert a tag in someone else's post, but to add a separate follow-up posting requesting a citation. -- JimR 07:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that this tag is used. Is there anything at the moment that says it can't be? My point is that this is an over-literal interpretation of not changing someone's post, which is really intended to stop someone changing the meaning of someone else's post. It is already expressly permitted to add a not too dissimilar tag, namely {{unsigned}} and I see this falling into the same category. We do indeed want to preserve an accurate history, but the bottom line is that all of this is with one end goal in mind, namely creating good articles, and anything that will help to do this has to take priority over other considerations. I believe the use of the tag in this way is therefore justified.

Some talk pages have fallen into an abysmal state where they might just as well be message board posts, with anybody voicing — and arguing at length — their POV and not backing it up with any verification. Here's a talk page that was expending a huge amount of energy and getting nowhere [4]. I came in as a third party to try to get the discussion back on track in line with policy and this is where I had the idea of using the fact tag.[5] In these two paragraphs I found 5 different unverified assertions. To spell these all out again in words and ask for verification for each one would have been very cumbersome, but to simply highlight them in this way went very effectively straight to the point. Other editors here also adopted the practice and it proved very effective. I move that we encourage this practice.

If that is the case, the next point is how the first person answers. At the moment, they would remove the fact tag and put in a reference (except most of the time they don't seem to be able to provide one anyway, so it becomes academic). This is an alteration of the talk, so admittedly it does distort the history, but I suggest that the benefit gained (namely verifiable material) takes precedence. However, it can be made plain that this has happened by devising another tag that would replace the fact tag with one in the same position and type size stating "citation as requested" followed by the citation, so that it is obvious what has occurred. Maybe the fact template could be amended so that if a piped link were inserted into it, it would change into this.

Tyrenius 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I certainly agree on principle, I have reciently encountered a user taking grave offence to this, and only getting more worked up. This is why people are worried about the implications of using this. It would certainly be a very good tool, but could potentially spell out more fighting. That is why I would like to see more discussion on this point - right now I'm in the middle of an editing project, so I can't really go and promote this on places like the village pump, but it might well be a good idea. LinaMishima 15:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If it were part of the guidelines and became an established practice, then there wouldn't be the same problem that you've pointed out. An editor should welcome this invitation, and I think someone who objects has to have their priorities questioned. Tyrenius 17:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Including the proposed options, there are four means to ask for clarification:
    • Ask nicely in a reply
    • Ask rudely for a clarification
    • Ask tersely for a clarification
    • Add the {fact} tag
In my opinion, asking nicely would obviously be the prefared way to go about this, as a poite and kind request is normally more likely to garner a helpful reply. Adding a fact tag, due to it's impersonal nature, is clearly not asking nicely. Unfortunately, however, a terse request (which adding a fact tag probably also counts as) can often seem rude or insulting, as the editor did not spend the time and effort to word a nice request.
Now, as you have stated, this is intended for when things have gone out of hand, but out of experience I know that this is not how they will always be used.
LinaMishima 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the relevant section to incorporate your points without removing the option altogether. I wonder if this makes it acceptable? Tyrenius 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now I'm tired and about to settle down to eat, so I wouldn't trust my judgement. But it appears to be rather well done! Thank you :) LinaMishima 22:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General overhaul

There is a change in the order of sections, so that it starts positively with an affirmation of policy and ways in which the talk page can be used, rather than negatively as before with the section on unacceptable behaviour. I have retitled the section as "how to use article talk pages", as it is about article talk and not user talk. I found this rather confusing when I started on Wiki. This section now has more uses that occur in practice and hopefully this will encourage more editors to make fuller use of the talk page.

There has been a general clean up, mainly to clarify and make it more user-friendly, particularly for the less experienced editor. I have not attempted to establish any new guidelines, so much as demonstrating existing ones. However, there is one point which others may need to examine, where I have made the guidance on editing comments a bit stricter. Previously in the text it was rather ambiguous as to whether someone could or couldn't edit their own text. This presented a "loophole" which I know has led to some confusion and also permitted undesirable retrospective editing. It now seems to be generally accepted that we don't want people to engage in revisionism, and the text should be allowed to stand as a record of the debate.

The section on headings is rather wordy and needs to be made more immediately accessible with subheadings if necessary.

Tyrenius 08:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

These changes make wiki a little easier to use. I definately support them. Especially after months of dealing with abusive IP's. I'm almost at the point where I've had enough, and I think it's time we protected our talk pages from abuse with as much vigour as we protect our articles.--I'll bring the food 13:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Good job. I like the rewrite as well -- Samir धर्म 08:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been through other sections as well with the aim of clarifying them and making them user-friendly in a practical way. Tyrenius 23:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article talk page talk is not sacrosanct

It occurs to me that posts on article talk pages are not a sacrosanct record at all, and the injunction not to edit others' talk is completely overturned by the following:

It seems then that what is important are the ideas embodied, rather than the precise mechanics by which they are arrived at. I think here there is a signal difference between article talk pages and user talk pages. The latter is a record of the individual and the means by which they can be assessed by others, so there is a more pressing need for posts to remain intact. The article talk page, on the other hand, has the priority of getting a job done, namely to create and improve the article, and everything must be geared to that end. Tyrenius 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You will note, however, that are refactoring article notes that it is considered somewhat controversial due to the issue of changing other people's comments LinaMishima 23:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite so, but nevertheless it establishes the principle, and of course in an extreme way of completely rewriting talk and make a summary out of it. This has to be taken into account when we are looking at other issues relating to talk. Tyrenius 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that refactoring a page where active controversy was taking place would be adding oil to the flames and make the argument much worse. So refactoring is not a good precedent for what edits are appropriate when controversy is occurring.
I would be happier about your proposal for requesting citations in other people's talk page posts if appropriate templates were already in existence. Instead of the fact template (suitable for articles), it would be appropriate to have a template say {{talkeciterequest}} which would generate (as I previously suggested) "[citation requested by username at date/time]", as a superscript. For the original poster to respond, it's not so clear what one would want, since the reference would be quite long; how about something like {{talkcite|details}} which could generate "[Retrospective addition by originalusername at date/time in response to citation request: details]", probably not as a superscript. Sorry but I have no idea whether such templates are implementable.
Until all this is clarified further, and suitably specific templates are available, I think the part about {{fact}} in WP:TPG#How to use article talk pages should be removed. -- JimR 08:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about refactoring and controversy. I was just citing it to show that altering of talk has a long established precedent on article talk pages.

My point is that the fact tag is an already existing template which is suitable, and that we should be urging the same standards for talk pages which we require for articles, something which is not happening at the moment, very much to wiki's detriment. Is there anything that bars the use of the fact template for talk pages? That surely is a key issue. If there isn't, then I move that the section can be kept. I have removed it for now. It reads:

You may sometimes judge it to be appropriate to add a {{fact}} tag, which results in [citation needed] . This can be useful if there are several different points needing references within a single post. It is polite to explain why you have done this.

I think it is better if the request is not personalised. There is too much personality clash on talk pages as it is. Ideally a bot should go through tagging all the unsourced assertions. The request doesn't come from an individual: it comes from the requirements of policy implementation. The tag could be replaced by the reference, and then underneath the poster could add a note to say that references have been added on request; then everyone would be clear about what had happened. This seems a simple, straightforward and effective solution, and I think the less we add to "instruction creep" the better, if we can utilise already-existing facilities.

Tyrenius 12:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the section for the moment (and thanks very much for all your other work on WP:TPG, which has made it much clearer and more authoritative).
I see your point about not personalising the request. But I'm still worried about retrospective changes to talk page postings clouding the history of who said what and when. How would you feel about a {{talkciterequest}} template which generated [citation requested at date/time] . . . without the username, but still indicating that a subsequent addition has been made to the original post?
But I'm more worried about the responses from the original posters. I think if they are encouraged to add a reference to something they had previously said, then they're also more likely to make arbitrary retrospective edits, contrary to Don't change your text. Even if it's "instruction creep", proposing an acceptable way to format added material so as to indicate the date and time of addition seems important to me as part of preserving the historical integrity of how talk pages develop. -- JimR 13:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Then it should be pointed out that adding fact tags is not an allowance for changing others or your own text retrospectively--I'll bring the food 03:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V does not apply to talk pages and should not

Insisting on the same standards for talk pages as for articles strikes me as unneccessary and even counterproductive. In fact, this point has been made several times on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. If talk pages are to fulfil their function, one must be able to have reasonably free conversations about what the sources say, and whether there are likely to be other, as yet untapped, sources that say otherwise. It should be perfectly fine to say, "The following criticism seems obvious to me . . . I know of no source, but if I can think of that, some researcher probably has. Can anyone help locate a reference?"

Now, there has to be a limit on this sort of thing, but that will vary from article to article and situation to situation. I just had a lengthy conversation of this sort on Talk:Halting problem, that resulted in the editor who started out on the other side of the argument going out and finding an excellent source for a caveat that I could trivially prove, but did not have a source on my shelf. If some wikilawyer had insisted that I source the assertion in talk, the article would not have been improved.

As for templates, I see no need. I have seen this conversation a thousand times and it proceeds normally. Thus,

The moon is made of green cheese. <signed mooncheese>
What is your source? <signed lactosceptic>
Cheese Makers Monthly, June, 2006. <signed mooncheese>

No need to modify anyone else's edit -- no need to modify your own. In the rare case that putting the link or source inline is the right thing to do, one just comments in the conversation.

The moon is made of green cheese. <signed mooncheese>
What is your source? <signed lactosceptic>
Link added above, as I originally intended. Sorry. <signed mooncheese>

No need for instruction creep, IMO. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your point might have been valid had what we been dealing with had been "Oh, well golly gosh, do you think it might have been possible for Hitler to have not actually been a strict vegetarian?" "Well, Gertrude, I in fact do! Good catch!"
What we are in fact dealing with here is anonymous vandals adding such derisive trolling as "[DEROGATORY SAMPLE STATEMENT ABOUT LIVING PERSON REMOVED JimR 07:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)]" and "Marlon Brando would like the paedophile of pop, everyone knows he was a faggot along with james dean there are photos of them sucking each others cock on the internet".
Now, are you saying we shouldn't slap a fact tag on that? Or are you saying we should wage a war of attrition like rv'ing that makes the page truly impossible to post on?--I'll bring the food 03:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Or, worse, are you saying we should leave slander on the pages of living people's talk pages and biographies? We're talking readily accessible text here. People are going to see it, and soon there is going to be a controversy. There is going to be something big if it is not sorted out, and then we will not be debating semantics here, we will lose our choice because it will be removed from us by those more in ownership of the wiki.--I'll bring the food 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing that was said above made the proposal specific to bios of living people. I certainly did not get that from the proposed text. Bios of living people are a small fraction of Wikipedia's content, and have special requirements. Having the tail wag the dog (in this instance, having all talk pages be held to a standard devised for bios of living persons) is rarely a good idea.
If a statement is provably false, then what does slapping a {{fact}} or even {{failed verification}} template on it do? The false statement is still there, spreading. If the statement is supported by at least some reliable (or at least official) sources (such as your example about Michael Jackson -- acquittal is not a finding of innocence), it meets WP:V and WP:NOR. Whether it meets WP:NPOV is a matter open to discussion, and the talk page is the proper place to have that discussion. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
We certainly shouldn't slap a fact tag on unsourced derogatory refererences to living persons: we should revert or remove them immediately, whether in articles or — as I've just done above — in talk pages. See WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. WP:BLP overrides anything in WP:TPG in such a case. So that argument for using fact tags on talk pages is invalid. For the example referring to (dead) Brando and Dean, maybe a request for a citation is in order as a subsequent posting; or maybe that's a case where Tyrenius's fact idea, preferably in a more special form like talkciterequest as I've suggested, could be appropriate. -- JimR 07:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
With responsible, co-operative, disciplined users there is no problem. Unfortunately this does not always occur, and some talk pages get completely bogged down with users making completely unreferenced, POV statements on one or both sides of a controversial issue. This is the situation that needs to be addressed. The aspects of the talk page that Robert A. West thinks should be maintained are clearly pointed to anyway — but with an important caveat for users who are not acting responsibly (my underlining below) — so it's not even an issue:
There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to 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.
The other point is also covered, so that is not an issue either:
The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.
My proposal involves no instruction creep. It just gives the option of using a template that already exists to pinpoint assertions that need to be verified if an argument is to be sustained on their basis. Sometimes this can involve several different points within one post. The template can very clearly indicate each of these as needing a separate reference, as in this example. Again, I make my request as to whether there is any reason why this tag cannot be used in talk pages if an editor finds it useful?
As far as verification on talk pages is concerned, if anyone is going to continue to argue that something is included in the article, then they should not do so unless that point has been verified. That would seem to be a sensible requirement. It in no way prohibits "free conversations about what the sources say, and whether there are likely to be other, as yet untapped, sources that say otherwise."
Tyrenius 16:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
An editor does not need permission from this, or any other guideline to use any template that seems sensible or useful on a talk page. On the other hand, as noted above, placing an inline tag involves editing another user's comments, which tends to be provocative, encourages footnotes in talk pages, which I do not believe is a good idea, and encourages changes to one's own edits, which is a bad idea.
Moreover, just because there are six points doesn't mean that there will be six sources, or even six footnotes. (And WP:V does not mandate footnotes in any event.) Sometimes one has to read a whole chapter to follow the point. That's why discussion pages need to be flexible. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason not to use the fact template, as I've said before, is that it doesn't make it clear enough that this is a retrospective edit by a different poster, and therefore it acts to break down the prohibition on editing other people's postings in wider ways. A template which inserted the date and time of the retrospective addition might help to avoid this. However, the question of how the original poster is supposed to insert a reference (or six, as Robert says) retrospectively, without distorting the historical record of who said what when on the talk page, has not yet been addressed.

The importance of maintaining the historical record intact is that if people start editing their own or each other's posts after the fact, we'll all have to spend forever going through differences to work out if someone is misrepresenting or being misrepresented. -- JimR 11:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got priorities wrong. The priority is not about preserving talk at all costs. The priority is achieving an improvement to the article and anything on the talk page that contributes to this is a good thing. We've established that there is nothing to stop fact tags being used as it is, without any extra permission. We have also established that talk is not inviolable and all of it can be refactored into a summary, because the important thing is not people's individual bits (which are anyway recorded in the history) but the sum total of evolved ideas. Misrepresenting someone is to change an idea, not to add a fact tag. Please let's not make a fetish out of having to keep every full stop. This is losing sight of the reason we have talk in the first place, namely to create an encyclopedia. Tyrenius 13:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template proliferation

My apologies if this has been brought up before or elsewhere...

More and more talk pages, including many which contain no actual discussion at all, are becoming bogged down with the generic message templates of various WikiProjects and such marking their territory. These templates sometimes fill the entire first screen or more -- particularly when more than one group has found it necessary to broadcast their own ratings of the article.

I think it would be nice if WP:TPG addressed this issue in some way. I'm thinking something along the lines of "The primary purpose of a talk page is discussion. Therefore, message templates should be used sparingly, and should not be used simply to mark the territory of a particular WikiProject or notice board. It is almost never appropriate to add more than three such templates to a talk page. As a general rule, empty talk pages should not be created simply to provide a place for a template; generic message templates should only be added to existing talk pages. An exception may be made for templates which communicate important Wikipedia policies, such as {{WPBiography}} on the talk page of an article about a living person. Where multiple templates on a talk page contain rating scales, only one rating should be filled out. For that reason, the rating fields in these templates should always be optional. Disputes over article ratings should be resolved through dialogue on the talk page."

I realize it's a little strange for someone who has added {{Korean}} to hundreds of talk pages to be raising this issue... but circumstances and people change, and it seems to me that this is really getting out of hand. I'd have to say that the "This is page is part of WikiProject Foo" wording, found on many such templates, really bugs me. I can never shake the feeling that these templates are asserting an unacceptable degree of ownership, as if WikiProject members somehow had more of a claim to the article than others. Thoughts? -- Visviva 16:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that an alternative to modifying policy would be to create and enforce some sort of supertemplate, perhaps a souped-up version of {{Topic}}, which would provide unadorned information about related projects, noticeboards, policy pages, etc. etc., and would only need to take up a line for each additional topic area. But such a template could not contain rating scales, since these are currently unique to the various projects that have spawned them. -- Visviva 16:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It would help if the templates came up smaller in size. Tyrenius 22:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This was already proposed and duly buried under an avalanche of objections; do we really need to repeat the discussion? Suffice it to say that the WikiProject-driven assessment ratings are a vital part of Wikipedia's overall goal of focusing on article quality; and, as these templates usually provide significant utility in this regard (and many others), the consensus seems to be that the (minimal) inconvenience of having these templates placed on talk pages is an acceptable price to pay.
(Having said that, if you have concerns about the size or wording of a particular template, I would suggest talking to the project in question. Most are very open to complaints.) Kirill Lokshin 16:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I had been quite unaware of that. For the record, that proposal was rather different from this one (although this wasn't a formal proposal anyway, more of a general gripe). I'm certainly not opposed to ratings, publicization of WikiProjects, etc. etc. However, there is a need for moderation. When these non-dialogical gewgaws proliferate to the point that they interfere with the purpose of Talk pages, we have a structural problem.
If time permits, I am going to explore the path of least resistance: developing a template that can efficiently provide all relevant links and data without taking up screenfuls of space. At least I hope that's the path of least resistance ... :-) -- Visviva 10:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting contributions which are inconsistent with the purpose of Talk Pages

  • Copied from higher up on this page

There was a mini-editwar at Talk:Blood of the Fold this morning regarding some "patent nonsense" that was posted to that Talk Page. A longstanding, well-respected editor deleted the patent nonsense and the deletion was reverted by User:NeoFreak. I only identify the users involved so you can read the dialogue on their Talk Pages. There was also a short exchange between User:NeoFreak and myself because I chimed in siding with Kim Bruning.

NeoFreak claims that there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that supports deletion of a user's comments to a Talk Page even if those comments constitute a misuse of the Talk Page. Kim and I disagree. Kim deleted the comments a second time and NeoFreak restored them a second time.

I would like your opinion on who is right on this question. The comments in question can be seen at Talk:Blood of the Fold. There is no disagreement about the comments being nonsense and that they are a misuse of the Talk Page. The only question is whether to let them stand or to delete them. If the edit in question had been made to an article, it would have been reverted in a flash as vandalism. The standards for a Talk Page are lower but how much lower?

--Richard 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The TPG specifically state the purpose of a talk page, so anything that doesn't fulfil that is a violation which can be removed. Tyrenius 04:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The way I read Wikipedia policy and guidelines, the only thing any single editor can delete from any article's discussion page is a personal attack on that editor. Anything else should be common conseus or else stand. If someone reads it otherwise, post it up, let's see it. Terryeo 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Vandalism: The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Also, from the same page: Any vandalism found should be reverted to an earlier version of the page; remember to include any good edits that have happened since then!
Also, from Help:Talk page: Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject.
This means that edits can and should be removed (even from talk pages) when they are cases of blatant vandalism (personal attacks or "nonsense" included). It is also up to editor discretion to remove any other edits on the talk page which are irrelevant or are about the subject, not about the article.
In the case of the previous edits that were recently restored, I would say that most of it (if not all) is nonsense, but I could see how other editors might disagree. Some of it, though, is blatant vandalism and should be removed. I say, toss all of it. - Runch 21:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this interpretation of the rules. WP:RTP decribes this proccess describes a proccess where talk talk page is streamlined to encourage better discussion. From WP:RTP:
Refactoring, unlike editing, saves the entire original intent and meaning of the author(s).

Content to remove

    * Redundant - Separate discussions of similar or identical topics.
    * Superfluous - Content that is entirely and unmistakably irrelevant.

Content to alter

    * Outdated - A discussion that has reached an unalterable conclusion.
    * Poor formatting - Misused or underused indentation.
This keeps the talk page on topic. It is customary to put a notice showing the diff of the changes you made when refactoring. HighInBC 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The way I read it, the only thing which can be deleted from an article's discussion page is a personal attack, and then only by the person who is personally attacked. And yeah, some real drivel gets into them sometimes, heh. Terryeo 21:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Inappropriate content can (and should) certainly be removed from talk pages. Typical inappropriate content includes discussion about the subject of the article. Talk pages are for discussion of the article, not for general chat about the subject of the article. Kusma (討論) 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
NO, it should not. Terryeo 05:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup. We're here to build an encyclopedia. It's a somewhat reasonable view that anything that isn't about building an encyclopedia is fair game. Also see Wikipedia talk:Refactoring talk pages#Refactoring rude comments. --Interiot 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
IF you think so, get an editor concensus by building a guideline. Until then, don't. Because what you consider inappropriate might be considered to be important by any number of other editors. Terryeo 05:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I have tended to in the past. However, looking at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines it states "Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details)." - which seems to mean you shouldn't remove nonesense. I notice you've started the discussion there too, so I guess you know this already! AndrewRT - Talk 21:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict, putting my comment first to maintain flow) Yes, I do know that User:NeoFreak appears to be correct that policy and guidelines do not support the sort of deletion that User:Kim Bruning did this morning. What I'm looking for is a sense of whether the consensus supports changing the guideline or not. --Richard 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
That means you shouldn't tweak someone's signed comment to say something different from what they actually said. Removing whole comments that are obviously offtopic or gibberish is fine though, and if that isn't written down somewhere, then WP:IAR definitely applies. --Interiot 22:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with others. Deletion of irrelevant comments is commonplace, as long as everyone agrees that the comment is in fact irrelevant. Deco 00:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You're mistaken, Deco. It is neither commonplace nor desireable. AND it is unsupported by guildeline except in the instance of a personal attack, which you may remove if it is an attack on you, personally. Terryeo 05:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Though in all but the most obviously vandalistic contexts, a message on the Talk page of the user in question would be helpful. Fagstein 05:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments that are irrelevant to the discussion of the article can and often should be removed. Obviously this should not be done by someone who is involved in a dispute about those comments, but the fact is that Wikipedia discussion pages are exclusively for the discussion of that article and related Wikipedia topics, with some leeway. In this particular case, the comments were a blatant example of an inappropriate use of Wikipedia talk pages. They were several anonymous IPs chatting with each other about "cool" things that progressed into absolute, unmitigated nonsense. It was proper to delete it, there was no point in undeleting it and it is well supported by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and Wikipedia is not a social networking site, as well as Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. There is no reason whatsoever to allow random conversations totally unrelated to Wikipedia by anonymous IPs who were probably sitting in the same computer lab at school. —Centrx→talk • 06:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Based on the discussion above, it is clear that the majority of those who responded to my question felt that it IS proper to delete contributions that are inconsistent with the purpose of Talk Pages. Some editors referenced the purpose of Talk Pages as set forth in this guideline and asserted that anything inconsistent with that could be removed. One editor referenced this guideline as indicating that only personal attacks could be removed.
  • If there is NO objection, I intend to modify the text of this guideline to specify that contributions that are inconsistent with the purpose of Talk Pages may be removed by other editors.
  • If there IS an objection, I hope we will debate the issue here and come to a consensus (which may very well be the current status quo).

--Richard 07:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

TPG states clearly at the outset:
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 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.
The talk that was removed would thus seem to be "a serious misuse" and therefore cannot hope to be protected by later caveats in the guidelines. If editors persist in misusing talk pages, after having been warned, they should be blocked.
Tyrenius 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Additionally the guidelines say:
  • Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
    • Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details).
(My underlining above.) Note "significant exchanges". Note "usually". Note "such as..." — "libel and personal details" are examples of prohibited material. Other prohibited material is stated in the first paragraph of TPG, as I have cited above.
end of quoted area
Tyrenius 07:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No where in the policy pages does it endorse or recommend the blanking of content on a Talk page. I think that this policy needs to be reviewed but as it stands now refactoring and archiving both exist to deal with this issue, simple removal of is not an option as policy now stands. NeoFreak 16:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Blanking of vandalism is firmly established. Deliberate use of a talk page against policy stipulations is a disruption of wikipedia and can be removed. We don't need to archive disruption, trolling etc. Please read the quotes above from TPG. It is quite clear as to acceptable content of a talk page. Tyrenius 15:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New discussion

I think this is a difficult area. I've seen lots of Talk Page comments that are inappropriate but most of them should be left in place because there would be more damage caused by edit warring over what is and is not inappropriate. IMO, only the most egregious Talk Page comments should be deleted. I think Kim's deletion falls into this category.

The reason I have started this discussion is in preparation for a proposed change to these guidelines. Please stop discussing what policy SAYS NOW and provide your opinion as to what policy SHOULD SAY.

--Richard 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Both is irrelevant. You're supposed to describe the procedure that has historically been used. (Yes I know that that happens to give me a nasty advantage today! ;-) ). In any case guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. That's also why you can be blocked for disruption even when you haven't broken any written rule.
In this case, edit warring was the result of someone playing a rules lawyer, and myself foolishly actually being nice to them. This wasted a lot of time. Next time I'll get an admin to block much earlier. Kim Bruning 16:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that HighInBC's solution is an excellent example of what the new policy should recommend for this material as it is perserved in the history anyway. Of course I would dispute the cause of the "edit war" but this is not the issue to be discussed here. NeoFreak 16:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe this link[6] better illustrates my general solution to such stuff. HighInBC 16:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The "solution" is redundant. There is no reason to repeat entries that are already in page history. That's what page history is for. Kim Bruning 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
After a few years have passed the history gets very hard to search. That is why we archive talk pages even though the content is in the history. When people look through that talk page archive from years back, and simple link to a diff can help them find large amounts of removed information and give context to what was being refered to in the archive. I am not suggesting it be policy, but it is what I do when I must remove innapropriate content. HighInBC 16:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That's certainly a good plan for relevant edits, and I'd normally agree. . :-) It did not apply in this particular 2005 situation where some teenagers thought up this novel plan of using our wiki as a chat tool. I don't think we need to make rules for rare situations like that, else we'd have to make maybe a thousand rules every day. This kind of thing is what WP:IAR is actually meant for. Kim Bruning 16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
In this case[7] there was also discussion on the interpretation of policy, not just the 2005 chatting. I agree in the case of patent nonsense that no diff is needed, but a diff takes up so little space why not. HighInBC 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough in that case. Kim Bruning 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Citing WP:IAR when you don't like how current policy is written is not constructive. There is a relavent issue here as to wether or not an editor has the right to blank sections (or entire) talk pages by another eidtor(s) if they think the material is irrelavant. NeoFreak 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Ignore all rules prevents us from having to create 1000 new policies every day.
Policy policy policy, that's all you think about. As you demonstrated today, when you interpret policy as saying "you must disrupt wikipedia", you are quite willing to indeed disrupt wikipedia.
But wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Policy is only a means to the end of writing an encyclopedia. It is not an end in itself. Admins (once they are experienced) and the arbitration committee will typically judge your actions based on how much you help or hinder the encyclopedia.
If you follow the guidelines, you typically happen to help the encyclopedia, but you have to be aware that the guidelines do not, can not, and should not cover every single possible permutation of every possible situation. You need to keep your brain turned on, and be at least somewhat creative and clever in dealing with novel situations.
That's why the bot policies are so strict. We want *human beings* to edit wikipedia. We want them to edit wikipedia because human beings are clever and creative. Cleverness and creativity can better deal with unexpected situations, and solve them more smoothly and reliably than any policy or algorithm.
Kim Bruning 17:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC) And if you disagree, I shall replace you with a very small python script ;-)
  • Anything which does not further the aim of building an encyclopedia ca be removed from anywhere on Wikipedia. Users should utilise caution in removing comments from talk pages because it's easy to remove the wrong thing and set people running in the wrong direction: but in some cases it's manifestly right to do so. Like this one. Further, Wikipedia isn't a beuaracray (nor, luckily, a spelling competition) and Wikilawyering wil lget you nowhere. The Land 21:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason this might not warrant adding is because we shouldn't suggest to inexperienced users that talk page comments might warrant removal. Any experienced user who comes across them will remove them anyway and they are supported by WP:NOT in doing so. It might be best to clarify or make more strict here the purpose of talk pages, and that anything else is absolutely not permitted in talk pages. This satisfies anyone with a peculiar or inexperienced understanding of policies, that any errant text in talk pages is absolutely not permitted, but does not have the problem of openly suggesting to a random reader that comments should be removed. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest changing a sentence under "How to use article talk pages" on "Keep on topic" to "General conversation is not allowed on Talk pages...", but another problem with change like this is that comments that are related to the subject of the article, but not focused on improving the article, should mostly not be removed. Side comments by regular contributors also should not be removed. Where now we have someone saying that no unrelated comments may be removed, the same mode of interpreting policy would interpret a "General conversation is not allowed" or "may be removed" lead them to remove all sorts of comments that should absolutely not be removed. Objecting to these removals is nonsense anyway, these comments were clearly not related to Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
All the requirements are already covered in TPG at the moment. The second point in how to use talk pages says:
Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
Tyrenius 15:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it didn't belong on the page, you're not getting an argument from me there. The question is what to do with it once it gets put on the talk page. The talk pages are not encyclopedic, they are a peripheral function of the articles. What I'm trying to say is one can point to a multitude of warnings against the deletion of material from talk pages but not a single supporting line of wikipedia policy that even hints at endorsing deletion or blanking by a third party. None. Common practice does not equate to correctness. Should this material just be permited to sit untended on talk pages? I don't think so, no. Still, there is a positive aspect of documenting and giving a clear example of what has been refactored or removed in an unobtrusive fashion simliar to what HighInBC did. Wikipedia policy supports this. While some may not like the way policy reads and point to WP:IAR when they find that this policy conflicts with the way they think wikpedia should be run that's not what IAR is there for. Policy is there for a reason and third party deletion and blanking is not supported by policy for a very good reason. The solution that was presented on the page in question is unobtrusive, serves purpose and meets all the offical tenets of wikpedia, without disrupting the most important aspect of this encyclopedia, the articles themselves. NeoFreak 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, policy is a reflection of common practice and you should only be re-inserting these comments if you seriously think they belong on the Talk page, regardless of your narrow, ill-supported interpretation of the written policy. —Centrx→talk • 04:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree with Centrx. The point is "it didn't belong on the page". End of story. Tyrenius 06:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You say "policy is there for a reason" and "not supported by policy for a very good reason". Apparently different people disagree with what those reasons might be. Could you supply your view on those two reasons? Kim Bruning 09:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First off,once again, I just want to make sure that no one thinks I'm advocating the placement of comments like that on talk pages, I'm not. But once it is there editors don't have the right to just come along and remove material they find offensive or inapproriate. Even flagrant personal attacks, one of the things that is most frowned upon in talk pages, have specific rules preventing a third party from deleting or blanking them. So why would this not extend to chatter? The reason why it's a good idea to be so clear and unequivocal about non-deletion as policy is, is that otherwise more and more editors are going to continue to remove material that they don't find constructive and now you have just eleminated the strongest quality of the talk pages, a fair, equal and open forum with archived documentation of previous dicussion. Should only admins allowed to remove talk page material deemed "inappropriate" or can anyone just remove others comments on thir own volition? That's a slippery slope. That's why policy doesn't support it, and it's a good thing. Bearing in mind that the material in question doesn't belong there HighInBC's solution is meeting both WP:COMMON and by a streach WP:IAR in keeping with the spirit of policy and documenting it's existence on the page while being unobtrusive and simple. The talk pages must always be a place where everyone has a chance to get their opinion out as the articles are a much more stringent and exclutionist enviroment, which is a good thing too, as those are the encyclopedic articles. They have diffrent rules, standards and guildlines for a reason. I hope I've made my position clear. NeoFreak 11:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk pages are not the place for people to air their opinions. See TPG:
Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.
You argue "I just want to make sure that no one thinks I'm advocating the placement of comments like that on talk pages, I'm not." Then you defend the retaining of comments that you disapprove of. This is putting process above content and purpose. The rules are there for one reason only - to create content. Obviously the guidelines need to be amended to make it clear, and to bring them in line with current practice, as I have seen on a number of occasions irrelevant talk being deleted. This is already implicit in the permission to refactor, i.e. to distill a complex argument into its basic components in order that it may more readily be understood and used for its proper purpose of creating content. Obviously in a refactoring such as I have just mentioned, then the irrelevant talk will be refactored out of existence, since there is nothing in it to summarise for creating content, so, if you prefer, see the deletion of such comments as a partial refactoring process. It can be done by any editor: admins have no special role in this way. Tyrenius 01:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted request

(I don't know if this is the right section to enter the following, but it's close.) I entered a comment on the talk page of the astronomical body Eris (requesting an etymological entry) one or two days ago. To-day, that comment and the response or responses to it are gone. There is nothing I can find indicating that it was archived (the word archive was not found by my search function). I could not find it in the history list. I only found my comment by going to my own history, where Icould click on diff and see my comment and click through resopnse(s). Now, subsequent to my request, some-one did in fact add the etymology to the Eris article; so my comment apparently helped before it disappeared. But is this normal: deleted requests that have been taken care of? Kdammers 00:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, because it's a valid contribution to the evolution of the article, and may need to be referred to in the future (e.g. if someone wonders why there is such a link) so it should be archived. Tyrenius 16:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphenating compound nouns

It is a mistake to hyphenate ad hominem so that it reads ad-hominem. Please don't do it. Overpunctuating compound nouns and sentence fragments makes Wikipedia less authoritative, less attractive, and that much more difficult to read. It also breeds incredulity, and a disrespect for the rules in place here.

Worse, it encourages people to hyphenate words like habeas corpus, mens rea or reus actus. Sure, you often see high school teachers (and law professors) spelling things randomly, and according to the mood of the day, but the rest of us are a step up above that.

Please resist the urge to hyphenate a series of words that are frequently found together, but which otherwise, historically, were treated as separate words with separate grammatical functions.

[edit] Talk page abuse

Could someone please have a look at this:

I believe that this clearly breaches Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; but I would appreciate it if some more experienced people in this area had a look. Exactly the same spam has been put up at Talk:Orkney Islands and Talk:Shetland Islands.

It is part of a spamming campaign by sockpuppet Orkadian (talk • contribs), when they have even put spam in article space: [9]. --Mais oui! 13:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] asp template problem please read!

the asp template only has this template

asp-4 This user is a expert ASP programmer.

it should have more than just this one sort it out —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madcowpoo (talk • contribs) 2006-10-02T21:05:04.

Thik you are on wrong page, perhaps you are looking for WP:UBX or something. →AzaToth 20:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking apart other peoples' comments

Is it acceptable to break apart other people's comments and reply to each part

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing

separately? I'd think this was prohibited, but I can't find anywhere that says it is. It breaks up the natural

elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut

flow of the original poster's comments and subsequent conversation and makes it harder to follow for all involved, especially

labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. User:SomeUser
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. User:SomeOtherUser

because only the bottom-most comments have signatures. It can also be used disruptively to bury disliked "signals" in subsequent "noise". Are there any guidelines about this? Is it good? Bad? Acceptable, but discouraged? Acceptable, but can be reformatted by others? I prefer to follow a sort of Posting_styles#Inline_replying, where I quote the original (snipped) comments a second time and then reply to them:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. User:SomeUser

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet

Indeed.

quis nostrud exercitation

I'd have to say no to this.

Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt

We are definitely in agreement here. — Omegatron 02:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

(This was brought up because of Talk:Wind_power#Tweaks, which I think completely unreadable. See User_talk:Skyemoor#Talk_pages.) — Omegatron 02:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headings on talk pages

When a comment is added to a talk page along with a new heading, is it appropriate for the User to change that header, or is the header part of the comments? I'd prefer to have my heading to stay intact since I added it in an attempt to put my message in context. Also, any recommendations for handling people who choose to ignore these guidelines in general, even when they are pointed out to them? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering a change to the header appropriate or not is up to the two users to decide. The TPG suggests users not change the header. If the header is neutral, it should not be a cause for conflict. If you added the header in an attempt to put my message in context, then you should put whatever the header was originally in the first line of your text or as a sub-heading.
As to users who "ignore" guidelines, all I would do is to write to him or her politely and suggest reading TPG, and then let them decide for themselves what best to do. Remember: they are guidelines, not policy.
I am sure all the users of Wikipedia are intelligent enough to make their own decisions to the benefits of the community. Hope that helps! —SolelyFacts 00:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate others' input on this. To be clear, I'm referring to comments posted on a user talk page, where the header posted along with the comments is changed by the "owner" of the page. -Milo H Minderbinder 14:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, No one -- you, I, or anyone -- owns articles on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure this applies to talk pages. Sorry for trying to help. —SolelyFacts 19:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
But there is a certain amount of ownership on your user-talk page. Certainly changing the heading to a descriptive (even unique for TOC purposes) one is usually fine, changing the Heading in a way that misprepresents the original poster is a definete NO-No. Agathoclea 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that solves it. Thank you for the reply. —SolelyFacts 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

(That solves it?) Thanks for the response, Agathoclea. If the header is discriptive (for example it lists a page that the comment is refering to), would changing it to something generic and losing that bit of content and context be acceptable? And is the fact that TPG is a guideline and not a policy reason for a user to completely disregard it and do whatever they want on talk pages? For the record, I completely agree that the user talk page isn't owned by the user, which is why I put it in quotes. That was just the easiest way to explain it. -Milo H Minderbinder 21:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • If it lists a page that the comment is refering to, you should put it on the first line, or create a sub-heading which I have already suggested to you (See above). Then you will not be "losing" anything.
  • Your interpretation of "a user to completely disregard it and do whatever they want on talk pages" may be inaccurate. If you are that user completely disregarding everything, you would know, but if you are not that user, you would not know what the other user is thinking, so it really isn't fair for you to say such a thing. Many people -- you, I, Agathoclea, and everyone I would think -- would not do as you suggested. You should write with less of a tone, please.
  • No one here is fighting so no need for such statements as "For the record." Please calm down. —SolelyFacts 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
In the above example turning a descriptive header in a non-descriptive could cause bad blood. Even if it might not be a blockable offence it reflects badly on the attitute towards the community as a whole. No big deal, until you need that community to be of help to you. Agathoclea 22:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's getting serious-- "bad blood". I'm staying away from this heated talk. —SolelyFacts 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is something to consider when embarking on the kind of experiment you have been doing. But please don't take my comments as "heated talk", I have no issue with you - I was just pointing out what kind of reaction you quite likley will solicit under the given circumstances. Just to illustrate: A lot of people are quite helpful and would drop a number of helpful hints, but if they come on the page and see that they have to jump through hoops to do so, they might refrain from doing so - whose loss? Agathoclea 22:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, for starters, I don't even know you, so I do not see the need to be so damn harsh, considering that you and I had no pervious conflicts. Using the terms you used has made this section a very, very heated talk. I will talk no more. I am not hostile with users I just met. Bye. —SolelyFacts 00:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I must ask both of you to please be so kind as to back off a little. Solely Facts is right in saying that you have not had any previous conflicts...Let's not make this a first. If this were Vampire: The Masquerade I would entance you both into speaking civilly, but it's not. It's the internet, and the choice to respect each others' opinions in a civil and polite manner is completely up to you. I do not care who was right and who was wrong...Because the fact of the matter is, no one is wrong if there is not a conflict. Thank you. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 05:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological or spatial ordering?

Under Layout, we find this guideline:

Answer a post underneath it: Then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts. The one at the bottom is the latest.

Is this to be understood to require a strict chronological ordering within a topic (i.e., all new posts should go at the end), or could later posts be inserted into existing discussion? For example, let's say we have this:

Comment A --User1
Comment B --User2
Comment C --User3
Comment D --User1
Comment E --User3

Should User4, who wants to respond to User2's comment post it between comments B and C (if C isn't concerned with B), between C and D (if C is concerned with B), or after comment E? I'd suggest the last option because it removes the judgement call required to choose the proper place for insertion which other users might disagree with. In any case, I'd propose the guideline be made more explicit. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Flex and I have discussed this recently, so to clarify some of my earlier remarks -- I think the correct placement for a new comment replying to Comment B should be under Comment C, using the same indentation as Comment C. The indentation marks it as a reply to Comment B, and it is placed chronologically last among such replies. Placing it after Comment E will make it harder to see that it is intended as a reply to Comment B, and thus makes it harder to follow discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The layout guidelines allow various indentation styles, but your argument for placement in spatial proximity rather than in strict chronological order requires one of the styles to be used universally. I agree that your method would generally make it easier to follow, but absent a universal indentation style, strict chronological ordering seems to me to be the best way. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for a minimum time before conversation archiving

I would like some input from others dealing with the archiving of conversation on talk pages and the timing. Is it ok for a user to archive immediately a warning for something in order to keep it from plain view? Even though the warning or reprimand section is still accessible, it is moved as to prevent perhaps others seeing the talk and discussing the problem being addressed. Should a minimum residence time for conversation to remain on a user talk page be proposed and enforced? If so, may I suggest a 14 day minimum time before archiving a section of conversation/warnings? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well...this issue has come up many times on AN and AN/I...I would have to say that, in all honesty, when someone archives their talkpage or deletes comments that are warnings very shortly after recieving them, it makes them look as though they are trying to cover things up. With established editors editing from their user accounts, I think if they want to archive a warning or even simply removing it after responding is up to them and this should probably remain as so. I don't think it looks favorably on them, but I don't see what good comes from demanding they keep warnings on their userpages, especially if the warning was from someone that has been in a content dispute with them. For anon editors, warnigs should remain until well after the situation is resolved...maybe even a month or more. Again, I don't condone the removal of warnings, but if an editor has seen it and the situation is resolved, then there is no reason they have to keep it on their talkpage.--MONGO 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Unless someone else cares to express something about this, let's leave the guideline as-is. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content that is Unacceptable

I think this article on talk page guidelines needs a section on Content that is unacceptable. There is a section on behavior that is unacceptable. I bring this up in part because of a disagreement that myself and another editor had on content of a talk page. I took the position from a statement on this page

qoute

   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

quote

That if it is not appropriate for the article it should not remain on the talk page. The other editor took the position that removal content from a talk page was vandalism.

Neither one of us had a good source to refer to for what content is or is not approriate on an articles talk page. Clearly (IMO) if a user scanners a playboy center fold and imbeds the image in the talk page on Barney, that would be approatiate and should not remain (and clear direction to remove it exists, for image copyright violation).

I think some guidlines need to be developed and published on this articles page. Jeepday 14:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Talk pages are not held to the same encyclopedic standards as articles, that is one of the things that makes them talk pages. Anything that is not vandalism, disruptive to wikpedia or contrary to the purpose of a talk page (discussion and presenting of opinion on relavent material) are acceptable on talk pages. The example you cited of the pornography on the Barney talk page would be an example of vandalism or disruptive behaivior becuse it not fall under the subject of its parent article. According to the Talk pages guidlines other's comments cannot be removed or edited but they can be archived or refactored. Refarctoring is the best option, in my opinion, in "removing" unacceptable material. NeoFreak 14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with NeoFreak -- there certainly is unacceptable material on talk pages, but they are purposely not held to the same standard as articles (except in cases that violate WP:BLP). --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that talk pages are not held to the same standards as the article pages. But the fact remains that the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines state policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. It is a belief held by NeoFreak and others that the guidelines prohibit you from removing others comments, but I don't see that written anywhere on the page (maybe I missed it?) it does say you should not remove your own comments, or if you do leave a brief statement saying you did. I am not arguing what the policy is or is not, I am saying it is not posted where I can find it and I think it should be. (as an aside when I look up refactor I have to ask, editing comments is forbidden but rewriting them is not?) Jeepday 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The guideline does specifically state that "off-topic discussions are subject to removal." I think it's good that it states this, and also that it doesn't encourage people to go out and remove off-topic discussions. As with anything else on Wikipedia, anyone can edit anything; using this power inappropriately, however, is likely to be seen as disruptive, uncivil, and/or vandalistic. Not sure that this guideline should get into the messy business of what can and can't be removed; that's basically a conduct issue, and we already have plenty of policies regarding interaction among editors. -- Visviva 04:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names

There are some people who know me in real life. I choose to use a pseudonym. However, I don't think other people should reveal my real name. I think that there should be a place, somewhere in the talk page guidelines, that you shouldn't use other people's real names. I think it is rude and disrespectful if the person does not want to reveal their real name. I don't want to edit the guidelines myself because I don't know where the text would belong.

                   --Heero Kirashami 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I forget at the moment where the policy is, but I think that reveling personal information about another editor is a blockable offense. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Reference desk/policy

There's a proposed policy for the reference desk. I'm posting about it here because I think there might be a lot of overlap with this guideline- the reference desk being similar to a talk page in many ways. Comments welcome. Friday (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/l/Wikipedia_talk%7ETalk_page_guidelines_7ccc.html"