Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 2

message: With the recent move of Help:Talk page to Wikipedia:Talk page, I note that we now have two pages in the Wikipedia namespace with very similar content.  As things currently stand, Wikipedia:Talk page is just an abbreviated version of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.  The argument could be made that anything beyond the technical description of that "discussion" tab at the top of the page ultimately falls under the heading of "guideline", in which case, having separate pages doesn't really get us anywhere.  On the other hand, sometimes having a "short version" and a "long version" can be useful.  Thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think two separate pages are appropriate, but not "shorter" and "longer".  Rather, one should be more technical, the other (this one) should cover (mostly) what not to do, plus things like refactoring a talk page.  If all of that were on one page, I think it would be way too long.  Plus it's good to be able to point newbies to the basic/technical page first.  John Broughton  |  ♫ 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What John said. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think they should be merged.  It is hard enough to find information on this topic without it being split between two pages.--GFLewis (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Talk page guidelines" and "Talk page" merge? 

message: Can we somehow clarify that talk pages are not for general discussion of the article's subject, but for discussions about the article itself? In 2 instances, someone will make a post on the talk page ("hi (celebrity), I really like you!" or "do you think this show is cool?") and I have simply and clearly stated the rules - "Welcome to Wikipedia, but the talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject matter, but on how to improve the article."  Twice now I have been challenged - one admin told me to lighten up (can't remember the admin's name) and one anonymous IP-only user told me people can say anything they want on the talk pages.  I linked them to this page, but can we perhaps clarify and strengthen this page that talk pages are not a general forum? Is there a template for talk pages that says they aren't a general forum? Kat, Queen of Typos 15:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views" is in bold as the second sentence of this project page.  Section 1.2 states "Talk pages are not for general conversation".  I don't see how it could be made any clearer.  • As far as a template goes, look at the top of this talk page at .  When put on an article talk page, the phrase "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject" will appear.  —DragonHawk (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk pages and general discussion 

message: I was hoping this page would discuss the role of talk pages if an article does not yet exist.  I'd been in the habit of using a template Template:Future article talk page, to start a talk page before an article is created.  After applying the template to the talk page, I'd use the talk pages to post what source links I had, why I thought an article should exist here, it's notability, etc..  It seemed that wiki policy at the time served created talk pages before the article was created, if the talk page served to help create a notable article.
Either I misunderstood wiki policy of the time, or it has changed since.  The template got deleted, etc.  The primary reason for the deletion was the possibility of abuse I think.  I still don't see that as likely, by applying a template and categorizing future article talk pages it was easy to track them, and delete them if abuse became an issue.  I'd been using said template for months, I didn't see a significant amount of abuse happen.
Anyway perhaps this page should clarify wikipedia's policy on talk pages that for articles that do not exist yet, or were deleted, for each of the possible methods of deletion.  Thanks.  Mathiastck 17:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise a good point; I've changed the title of this section to make the issue stand out a bit.  In the meantime (and I know it doesn't address the question), you could use Subpages to make notes about future articles. -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 18:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the positive impact :)  I'm trying to start a larger debate on talk pages, what they should and should not be used for, and why we ever have to delete them.  I think subpages would be useful if I just wanted to store my personal notes... but I'll just store those offline I think.  I was hoping to engage in a wiki process designed to request articles while collobarting in their first creation.  Mathiastck 11:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see an argument for starting talk pages for yet-to-be-created articles, as a discussion forum.  I suggest that since you're not getting any reaction here (except for us chickens), you post something at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), saying that you think this might be a good idea, and what do others think?  Then, based on that reaction, you can consider the steps laid out in Wikipedia:How to create policy.  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 02:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you have provided a lot of positive direction for me :)  Thanks!  Mathiastck 15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting up a talk page for a future but not yet created article? 

message: Currently, the wording on this page forbids removing one's own comments, even before anyone answered. I find the reasoning that "someone may still have read what you have written" ridiculous - by the same token, we shouldn't change any of our articles, because someone might have read the old version. How did this severe wording get in there? Was there any consensus for it? — Sebastian 08:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this change. I believe it is appropriate to strike a balance between avoiding confusing others and not interfering with editors' habits of self-correction. I agree there shouldn't be a prohibition on edits that are unlikely to have been previously relied on or whose change won't result in confusion. Changing edits shortly after they appear or to correct simple typos shouldn't be problematic. Policy should intrude on people's ordinary habits only where necessary to achieve an important goal. This is particularly true when habits which usually benefit the project and should usually be encouraged, such as people's desire to correct mistakes, are involved. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should encourage correction, and discourage removal of any comment that has been replied to.  Mathiastck 01:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing or changing one's own comments 

message: So far, this page assumes that people only change their comments to remove incivility. However, we have more civil than uncivil talks, and in such cases there often arises a need to change comments, too. I therefore propose the following addition: 
I've done this several times, especially when a reply made me aware that my comment lead to a misunderstanding that distracted from my point, in which case I wrote something like "Replaced A with B; thanks to (replier)'s clarification below."  — Sebastian 21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of misunderstanding, you could simply strike the words and add the modified version of your comments. There's no need for a strict guideline on this matter. PeaceNT 11:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reason to change one's own comments 

message: I currently have an interesting situation going on on a talk page that I watch. An anon is trying to raise a rabble there and argue for his particular position as if it were a forum. I have explained to him many times that the material he is presenting does not qualify for inclusion under Wikipedia:Attribution, however I no longer think he even wants to edit the article, he just wants to argue as if it were a forum. Since the beginning of my tenure editing here on wikipedia, I have noticed an extreme sacrosanctity of talk pages, so although if this were on the article I could easily just remove it, since it is on a talk page that might be considered bad taste. What exactly are the policies on talk page propoganda? Is there a simple way to get him to just be quiet? Thanatosimii 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't respond to him. --64.149.40.132 08:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning soapbox behaivor. 

message: Can somebody explain to me why it is thought helpful to call the guidelines for what should happen on the Discussion Page the "Talk Page Guidelines" as opposed to the "Discussion Page Guidelines".  Within an editing set-up which appears to have a policy for everything it would be extremely helpful to those trying to find their way about if items were named correctly.
Any chance of either changing the name of the Guidelines or the name of the tab currently identified as "Discussion"?  One or the other should really be changed to avoid confusion.Cosmopolitancats 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion Page Guidelines 

message: I had posted this issue here and it was suggested I cross-post to hee as well.  The question is, should we be suppressing any attempt to use the Talk page in historical articles?  Thanks. Wjhonson 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "should be suppressing any attempt to use the Talk Page"  I hope you jest. jae 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk pages of historical articles 

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

message: What do we do with nonsense and other inappropriate types of comments on talk pages?  To use a current example, a user posts things like "Bill Clinton did in fact bone Monica" on the Bill Clinton talk page, someone deletes it as inappropriate content, and another user is arguing that that removal should not have happened. Tarc 04:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is to discuss about the article, and not the topic. Anything that discusses the article can stay (although you could remove those that are too childish, like "This article sucks, delete it!", or just ignore them). Anything that discusses about the topic instead of the article should be deleted. As for that specific comment (without checking the talk page) it depends: if the context is a discussion about whether to include that information in the article, it can stay (even if it is not really productive), but if it is a new section thrown just because, it should be deleted. -- ReyBrujo 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a side note, you could remove offensive or too vulgar comments, and ask the user to rewrite it in the proper tone expected between civilized people. -- ReyBrujo 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see also the thread "Removing comments on talk page" (above). Offensive comments on talk pages should only be removed when they are totally irrelevant to the content of the articles. Otherwise, they could be reserved. PeaceNT 11:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on removal of talk page comments 

message: What is the proper action in the case where a new user has created a lengthy comment on a talk page, but has incorrectly formatted it to the point where it is difficult to read. For instance, in this case, I had to re-format a user's comment before I could read and respond to it. I have added a proposed exception to the policy on editing others' comments to cover this case. Ronnotel 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about minor editing like moving comments into a new heading? Is there a policy on that? I just went ahead and did that over here:  . Was that the right thing to do? DiggyG 02:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problem. A heading is needed to generate TOC (table of contents). Tyrenius 00:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing newbie comments for formatting 

message: My son is doing a heritage project for his grade eight fair, and has decided to write about the moose in Newfoundland.  Although we have found tons of information about our moose, we cannot pinpoint exactly whose decision it was to introduce the moose to our province.  I'm sure it was because of the people's demands, but who made the decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.42.212 (talk • contribs) 
:Your question is probably better suited to ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. I'll post it there for you. --Kyoko 21:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction of moose 

message: Is there a policy on not editing other editors posts on talk pages?  This is regarding just a regular post, not a personal attack or other prohibited editing.  The editor who edited my comments used the excuse that I changed my own post after he responded to it, so he felt justified in "restoring" my original version.  My "change" was actually on the order of fixing a typo, nothing that changed the context of the original post.  I've taken the issue to ANI, but was wondering how strong the prohibition against editing another's talk page post was.  Thanks!  Dreadlocke  ☥  05:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt it changed the context of the post (and it was a wording change, not a spelling fix).  Why don't you just provide the diff instead of giving your spin?  --Minderbinder 14:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I'm asking a general question.  I'm looking for that policy you asked me to find, remember?  Your own spin is that my change somehow changed the context.  I'd like you to show me exactly where that context change was.  Dreadlocke  ☥  17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Use English: it has to be stated clearly that the responsiblity for translation is on the person leaving a comment in a non-English language. Other editors should not be expected to have to do this. Furthermore, if a non-English posting is accepted as such, it could lead to problems, where a message is posted with critical content (BLP/legal issues come to mind) and is ignored because no one else gets round to doing a translation. Tyrenius 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your revision is fine for me. I don't want to get rid of the provision requiring that talk page comments be in English, I just wanted to modify it so it didn't come across as hostile. I think the changes so far achive that. Cheers, Black Falcon 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice]] 

message: In the part about indentation, Tyrenius recently added the sentence "Normally colons should be used, not bullet points."  While I prefer that style myself, and in my experience that does appear to be the more popular style, I know there are those who prefer bullets instead.  Given the immediately previous sentence is "Any indentation system is acceptable.", I am concerned that the new sentence lacks consensus.  For the new sentence to be valid in this guideline, there would have to be widespread agreement throughout Wikipedia that colons are the proper from to use in most situations, and I'm not sure that exists.  At most, it's a sort of "implicit consensus", which may or may not be what's right.  I'm going to take that remark out pending commentary by others.  •  So, Others: What do you think?  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not something new. It is simply clarifying what is already said, namely "There are two main systems". Both these systems use colons. It is furthermore virtually universal to use colons, so the statement "Normally colons should be used, not bullet points" is correct, because this is the normal usage. Furthermore, when someone puts a bullet point in a thread, it interferes with the normal sequencing, and as already stated, "The important thing is that the sequence of talk should be easy to follow." The sudden intrusion of a bullet point makes it harder to follow. The statement I inserted doesn't prohibit bullet points, but it does mean that new users will be pointed to the proper use of the "two main systems". Now can we put it back in please? Tyrenius 23:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing that colons are the more commonly encountered system.  My objection is that, the way I was interpreting the guideline, "Any indentation system is acceptable" meant that bullets were equally acceptable.  I know there are those who prefer bullets.  It's kind of a NPOV thing.  With this addition, I can foresee the people who prefer bullets being challenged with a reference to this page, saying, "See?  It says you should use bullets."  The bullet-fans would then have the legitimate complaint that this addition was made without prior discussion.  •  I completely agree that new comments should continue the style already used in the thread.  If the thread has been using colons, one should continue to use colons.  Likewise, if the thread starts off with bullets, one should continue to use bullets.  I cannot see anyone objecting to statements to that effect.  •  Feel free to put it back any time you like.  I'm not going to battle over this.  I just wanted to foster discussion.  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I have boldly updated the section on editing others' comments. It previously read "Editing others' comments (except on your own user talk page)  is generally not allowed." That indicates to me that, on your own talk page, it is even acceptable to directly edit the comment of another person to change its meaning (as opposed to outright deleting it). For example, changing "Please stop vandalizing" to "You're so freaking awesome" and leaving the sig intact as if that is what the original user posted. Obviously, that is unacceptable. And even though the previous sentence reads "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning", the parenthetical appeared contradictory and needed clarification.
Instead, I have removed that parenthetical and added the following to the list of exceptions: "On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment."
I believe this change is uncontroversial and reflects current community consensus, but if someone disagrees and reverts, let's please discuss here. Thank you, Satori Son 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good clarification to me. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Remove "directly", it's a meaningless added word.  Otherwise it sounds like you can "indirectly" edit the comments. Wjhonson 20:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Editing others' comments on your own talk page" 

message: Should Aramaic be added to the list? It has ~445,000 speakers according to Wikpedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic
Ca hikes 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aramaic? 

message: In Talk:Left-wing politics an anonymous user added 15kb of negative quotes from Marx, Engels, and "other Leftists."  He didn't write any comments. Is this acceptable and in accordance with Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines? Vints 11:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true. He made the remark, "The Wikipedia article claims that to be on the Left is to be Anti-War, Anti-Racist, and Anti-Imperialist Here are a few quotes from Marx and Engels (make up your own mind)". Tyrenius 01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spamming? 

message: The guideline current states "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements."
Firstly policies that apply to articles do *not* apply to talk space.  This guideline cannot supercede the policy pages themselves and they specifically state that they do not apply to Talk space.  I suggest this portion be removed "..., and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research."  The rest of the paragraph states exactly what the original intent was, to disallow talk space from being used as a personal platform. Wjhonson 01:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite where each of the 3 policies specifically states they do not apply to talk pages. Tyrenius 01:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tyrenius. All policies are for every page and they only allow for leniancy when on your own user page or your own talk page as per the guidelines on those. SanchiTachi 01:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You too can agree all day, but it simply has never been the case that the policies have ever been applied to Talk pages. Wjhonson 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying editors are welcome to argue points that do not in any way meet the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR on a talk page? Tyrenius 01:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already fixed this under #policies?. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page purpose 

message: I just made a few edits to the technical and format standards section, mostly to make it shorter and more readable. The main problem with the section was that the audience it addressed was unclear - most of the text was addressed to new Wikipedians, but it contained very advanced/difficult information as well.
A lot of text was removed, but the information and purpose is intact. By this method the most important sections get the most attention.
Something I want to throw into the group is a name change: the current section seems to be named like a chapter in the FORTRAN documentation. What about something simpler, like "Formatting" ?
--User:Krator (t c) 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical and format standards