Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Guideline order? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Enforcing the Guidelines

message: 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)
thread_title:  Help with a Constant Vandal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What I think we want to prevent 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Edited the above to reflect this, also added timestamps. — Nathan (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Netspeak and/or timestamps 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bots spamming user talk pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: Here's a case . 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)
thread_title:  Talk page disambiguation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good job.  I like the rewrite as well -- Samir   धर्म 08:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General overhaul

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Deleted request

message: 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 , when they have even put spam in article space: . --Mais oui! 13:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page abuse 

message: the asp template only has this template  it should have more than just this one sort it out —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
thread_title:  asp template problem please read! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Breaking apart other peoples' comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Chronological or spatial ordering?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggestions for a minimum time before conversation archiving

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Content that is Unacceptable

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's at Wikipedia:Harassment.   John Broughton  |  Talk 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/policy]] 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Talkheader}} 

message: I don't know how to do an indent and this page doesn't tell me. 88.109.152.209 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Help:Talk page.  Or click "Edit", for this section, to see how this comment was indented.  (In general, if you're trying to figure out how to do something, try to find an example of it and look at the underlying text/markup.) John Broughton  |  Talk 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear, simple ''(k.i.s.s.)'' 'how to' 

message: On Talk:cold fusion, the same issue is regularly raised in (sometimes heated) discussions.  In order to avoid the repetition of the same arguments, I have set-up a Template for conclusions (see Template:Conclusion), and used it in Talk:Cold_fusion.  
Should this become part of the Talk page guidelines, as an alternative to Factoring ? Pcarbonn 12:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea, but I wonder if there should be a bit of experience with it first?  At minimum, many editors might like to see some real-life examples, and see whether after such a template is posted, people argue over what's in it, before the editors agree that a change to the guidelines is appropriate.  John Broughton  |  Talk 15:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is still experimental. However, how could we get more editors to try it ?  How would they find out about it, if not in the "Talk page guidelines" ?  Maybe we should mention it in this page, but with a warning that this is still experimental. Or maybe, there is another page that would give it more exposure. Any suggestion welcome.  Pcarbonn 15:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how to write the conclusion of a discussion