Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

Talk pages and general discussion

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

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

Talk Page/Forum page for talking about the topic

There are many Talk pages in which people give there opinion this is not what the page is for but it is something that seem to be very desired. The idea of a forum like page would be very useful talk pages offering review on movie pages for example could be something useful for picking a movie to see some times the page are just a spoilers and if there were reviews you could read the review without having the movie spoiled .To offten pages discussing politics or history are told from the POV of those who were in controll.Soldiers who served in Iraq offering stories about thier service would be very insightful all to often the little details are over looked. a simple story of one day in iraq telling what the berics were like how they ate this would never be in a normal encyclopedia but that's what is the benifit of wikipedia offering the most complete view . The incessant unceasing perpetual, continuous, nonstop, around/round-the-clock, uninterrupted, unbroken, unremitting, persistent, relentless, unrelenting, unrelieved, yalk over POV would be solved put the FACTS on the article and the OPINION on the talk/forum pag.If anyone likes my ideas and bad spellin and grammer and has Ideas on how to go about adding a forum tab to the top an eery page email me N8Riley@inbox.com ==I am Nate Riley==

User talk pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing comments on talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing or changing one's own comments

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

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

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

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

Another reason to change one's own comments

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

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

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

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

Concerning soapbox behaivor.

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

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

Discussion Page Guidelines

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

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

Talk pages of historical articles

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

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

gara spelling

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

the cheat

dude And yin

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

Question on removal of talk page comments

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

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

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

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

Editing newbie comments for formatting

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

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

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

Flat versus threaded, [mis]use of indents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Comment
::Another comment

Rather than

:Comment

::Another comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goddess Rosemary

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

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

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

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

introduction of moose

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

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice

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

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

Bullets vs colons

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

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

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

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

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

semi protection status

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

"Editing others' comments on your own talk page"

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish history overview

Moved to Talk:Jewish_history

Aramaic?

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

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

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

Spamming?

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

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

Talk page purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical and format standards

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

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

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

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

policies?

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

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

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

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

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

Two examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indentation redux

This guideline formerly allowed for two styles of indenting — threading (where each post is indented one more than the post it is responding to and should be placed directly under that post and all its existing responses at the same level but above others of less indentation, without regard for chronology in the postings) or per-user indenting (where each user uses a single indentation level for an entire discussion and all posts are listed chronologically) — but now it recommends only threading.

When User:Kim Bruning made that change, she suggested it was justified because "no one on internet or wikipedia uses [per-user posting] AFAIK (if you have evidence to the contrary, please come forward :) )." Not too long afterwards, I noticed the change and brought forth evidence on the matter, but I have not received any response. I'll reiterate here.

The benefits of threaded discussion are well discussed and true, but I'd add that when a long discussion involves only a few users and is rather linear (e.g., this discussion), per-user indentation can be easier to read since it doesn't waste space and scrunch replies on the right side of the screen. Therefore, I propose restoring per-user indentation as an option. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Some points:

• When only observing the "user indenting" and "threaded discussion" methods, the vast majority of discussions are threaded, both on Wikipedia and outside of Wikipedia. This guideline is written not to smack people with when they misbehave on talk pages (We have WP:CIVIL for that) but to serve as an answer to the question "What is the proper way to ask/discuss something on a talk page?" for those new to the talk page concept. Most of the readers come here from the talk header template, also present on this page. Listing two methods might unnecessarily alienate new editors from talk pages ("Apparently the formatting is weird") - a bad thing.
• Sometimes, indeed per user indenting might be useful, especially in discussions between two editors. However, how does one switch from threaded to user indenting, or even start a discussion using the latter? Confusion between editors, unnecessary time spent on formatting, and an overall less productive discussion might follow.
• For the very rare discussions where:

1. All participating editors are familiar with the per user indenting system.
2. The per user indenting system is indeed more useful in the discussion. (Few editors, long notes per user, many responses to a single point, long discussion, etc.)
3. The switch between threaded and per user indenting does not demand any significant effort, or starting the discussion in a per user indented format is understood by all editors.

...I think it would be better to invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, rather than to write up a paragraph explaining the system and its usage here.

--User:Krator (t c) 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

jewellery

Jewelry is spelled jewelry and pronounced jew-el-ry (joo'al re) and not jew-ler-ry. Writer probably spelled it the way he/she pronounces it; both of which are incorrect. It is a product of putting jewels into settings; not a place to keep Jews.

jdm 65.169.222.98 01:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

British vs American spelling difference. See WP:ENGVAR - and I fail to see how either spelling could imply "a place to keep Jews." —Random832 14:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I noticed one instance of vandalism on this page. The caption "The Sacred Heart of Jesus" had been changed to "The Sacred shit of Jesus."

Thanks.

70.153.105.118 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Corey

Interpolated editorial comments in addition to (or in lieu of) the talk page

I would like to see the talk page guidelines specify that generally speaking, editorial comments belong on the talk page, and not embedded in the article in the form of <!---interpolated comments --->. I brought this up at the Village pump policy page, but discussion is dying down, and I can't tell if there is any kind of community consensus on this issue. Best, MoodyGroove 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I find comments in the page itself to be useful sometimes, especially when dealing with lots of anonymous editors or new editors who are unfamiliar with the talk pages and will just not read any notes on them. --User:Krator (t c) 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of comments do you find to be useful? I agree there are some appropriate uses. For example, <!---Please do not post new comments below this line---> or maybe even <!---This section represents a consensus as of 06/07/2007. Please see talk page before changing--->. However, I also think there is a potential for abuse. For example, <!---This is a [[WP:RS]] and is acceptable per [[WP:BLP]]. The editor who removed it should refer to [[WP:NPOV]].---> These kinds of statements are opinion, not fact, and content disputes should be discussed on the talk page, not inside the article. MoodyGroove 23:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

1) Messages to warn vandals. See the top of StarCraft II - it was harassed by tons of vandals/people inserting bad content before semi-protection, and the message might have scared some away.

2) Asking for very specific things. For example, in a cite book template, the date of publication is unknown. Adding <!-- anyone know this? --> in that field would be appropriate or at least useful here. The same applies for minor editiorial notes. For example "is this sentence right?" and "maybe 200px instead of 180px?"

3) Comments on code. Used in for example {{Citation}}. Outside the template namespace, articles using delicate features like sortable tables (List of Wii games) sometimes employ instructions for new editors, or simply a pointer to the talk page to avoid breaking the code.

The list is longer. --User:Krator (t c) 23:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Indentation - Colons or bullet points?

I have noticed an interesting issue after I reverted User:Uncle G's edit on the community sanction noticeboard[4]. As a result I had unintentionally sparked an edit war among a few other users, who left a few comments on that page.

What Uncle G did was replace all colons with asterisks, while adding a comment to discussion. As a result it made the resulting diff very confusing and difficult to use for future investigation. When I asked Uncle G of this, (here) he responded that: "There are several reasons for using asterisks instead of colons, especially on large discussion pages. Have a look at what and how much HTML markup each generates, for starters."

I'm interested in finding some clarification regarding this. - Zero1328 _Talk? 13:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't with someone using either asterisks or colons, but 1) with a user deciding to change what's already on the page, but not mentioning it (or why) in the the edit summary and 2) with the same user inserting a bunch of whitespace, which makes the diffs hard to read. It didn't help when another user reverted, which removed a comment as well as the formatting. Personally, I'd love it if people included a blank line when adding comments, it makes editing talk pages much much easier. I don't particularly care about asterisks or bullet points, except bullet points make lists much nicer. Dan Beale 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, see further up this page for some nice examples of using colons and asterisks. Dan Beale 14:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What I'm wondering exactly is why Uncle G said asterisks are better than colons. I decided to try to move the conversation here for more people to see and comment. The amount of HTML code generated could affect dial-up users (by a very minor amount,) and I want to know what the other reasons are. I should also bring up the fact that Uncle G appears to be changing them to a large extent, but I should probably go to an admin noticeboard for that. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

First, it's the norm here at Wikipedia (as far as I'm aware) NOT to bother mentioning any cleanup of formatting of pages where discussions take place; only editing the actual words of another editor merits a comment in the edit summary. Second, and more importantly, if the wikimedia software that handles diffs worked better, it would have been obvious that Uncle G had simply done some tinkering with colons and asterisks as well as leaving a comment. So to me the situation being discussed here seems more appropriately the subject for a bug report/feature request than for a discussion about what editors should and should not do. (It's better to fix software than to hope to train (tens of) thousands of users to understand a known software deficiency.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:DWAP, it does not really matter. I prefer colons, as the bullet points distract me. --User:Krator (t c) 14:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On indentation styles and HTML generation.

all generated HTML examples were taken from the preview.

Note: Both actually generate the same amount of HTML, simply with <ul> and <li> vs <dl> and <dd>. What generates more HTML is when they are mixed improperly, for example:

*comment
**comment 2
***comment 3

generates

<ul>
<li>comment
<ul>
<li>comment 2
<ul>
<li>comment 3</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

and

:comment
::comment 2
:::comment 3

generates:

<dl>
<dd>comment
<dl>
<dd>comment 2
<dl>

<dd>comment 3</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>

but

*comment
:*comment 2
::*comment 3

which I see all too often, generates

<ul>
<li>comment</li>
</ul>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>comment 2</li>
</ul>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>comment 3</li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>

adding blank lines between is also, by the way a problem for either:

:comment

::comment2

:::comment3

yields

<dl>
<dd>comment</dd>
</dl>
<dl>

<dd>
<dl>
<dd>comment2</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>comment3</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>

</dd>
</dl> 

with it getting even worse for deeper levels of indentation (not a problem when there are no blank lines. And, for bullets, you get this:

• comment

• • comment2

• • • comment3

which is probably why people use the "::*" style in the first place.

Note: mixing indentation styles is perfectly fine, as long as you do it right:

*comment
*:comment 2 (no bullet)
*:*comment 3 (has a bullet)

• comment

  comment 2 (no bullet)

  • comment 3 (has a bullet)

<ul>
<li>comment
<dl>
<dd>comment 2 (no bullet)
<ul>
<li>comment 3 (has a bullet)</li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>

</li>
</ul>

—Random832 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Incidentally, if you do it wrong with numbers, you'll get this:

1. numbered comment

reply

1. next numbered comment

or this:

1. numbered comment

1. another numbered comment after blank line

so people tend to stick to the proper format better with numbered lists than with bullets or simple indentation. In conclusion, the "right" way is to never place blank lines in between comments (except if one has no indentation at all, then it doesn't matter), and when replying, always copy the exact sequence of indenting symbols from the comment you're replying to, and add whichever of : or * you prefer. I do occasionally edit discussions to adhere to this, since it really does improve both the appearance (avoiding multiple bullets, mainly) and the generated HTML, while it has no effect on any individual user's preference/intent on whether they want a bullet in front of their comment or not. —Random832 14:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Markets

What are the similarities and differences between the capital market and the money market? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.11.130 (talk • contribs) 20:30, June 27, 2007 (UTC)

Try posting this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. -- Satori Son 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing comments/sigs

I added a clause about editing signatures, which is often (and rightly so) viewed as an uncivil action and in violation of m:Dick. However, I also added an exception, being if the signature violates the terms set out in WP:SIG. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with blankings

If somebody repetedly blanks out some comments from the talk page (apart from what is allowed described under Others' comments). Should I revert it? Once? Several times? Even if it risks 3RR? // Liftarn

WP:AN/I would be a good place to go. --User:Krator (t c) 22:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Talkheader

I have suggested a change to the talkheader template in order to decrease the amount of random stuff on this page. Your comments are appreciated. --User:Krator (t c) 17:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing sock puppet comments?

What about removing comments from sock puppets on article talk pages. Regardless of sock status non article very off topic can and should be removed but what about harsh borderline stuff that is more ranting but about the article subject. Delt/dealing with & trying to clean up some messes a multiple repeat sock puppets has left. Sometimes picking up the conversation right up when one account gets blocked as if nothings up. Should a sock puppets comments have any credible merrit or should they be removed? --Xiahou 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better place to ask this where admins will be more apt to read it and be able to rule on it? I have a bunch of sockpuppet comments on talk pages I'd really like to know if I should leave them or not especially the more radical borderline off topic ones. --Xiahou 21:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's not helpful material, I would remove it. Tyrenius 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing talk page sections

Some talk pages have numerous instances of the same topic coming up, with signs that the people writing later ones failed to look at existing topics to see whether their talk concern had been addressed already. Additionally, sometimes questions are asked in sections where they do not belong, or at the top of the page without any section header at all. (Apologies for the numbered lists, but this easiest to ask about in that form, and to discuss in terms like "option I.1.iii". Apologies also for verbosity.)

1. In cases of repeated instances of the same topic, which of these are appropriate?
   1. Rearrange topics to gather all instances of the repeated topic together, with a notation indicating the rearrangement.
      1. Gather each instance of the topic into the topic's first appearance (since it's a topic that has been on the page a long time).
      2. Gather each instance of the topic into the topic's most recent appearance (so that the newer instances aren't archived along with the older instances).
      3. Gather each instance of the topic into a new message at the bottom of the page (to make the rearrangement obvious to someone who has viewed the page in the past).
   2. When coalescing topics, group the original topics together, leaving them under separate headings.
   3. When coalescing topics, group the original topics together under a new heading, as sub-headings of the original headings.
   4. Don't coalesce instances of the topic, but add replies to older instances referring further discussion to the most recent instance.
   5. Other.
2. In cases where questions are placed in a section where they don't belong, or placed at the top of the page above any section headings, which of these are appropriate?
   1. If a question fits into an existing section, move it there. Otherwise give it a new heading.
   2. If a question is above all of the section headings, give it a new heading.
   3. If a question is above all of the section headings and already resolved, archive it.
   4. Leave such questions in place until the page needs to be archived.
   5. Other.

Talk:Radiation_poisoning is a page that includes examples of each. At the top of the page there is a comment (not even a question) and two questions that apply to a past state of the main article. A topic that appears repeatedly is the term "walking ghost phase" and related terms. (The topic of references in fiction turns up several times, but I'd only count that as a repeated topic if the same fictional reference appears more than once.)

-- Steve Schonberger 13:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that this whole topic is addressed on a separate page, Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. If consensus supports adding guidelines there about favored practices when refactoring a talk page, this could be used as a starting point for debate on such guidelines. However, I see that it's not a very good fit here. Oops. -- Steve Schonberger 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Talking about an article versus the Subject of an article/Deleting versus responding to a comment

Normally I would not be troubled by something like this, but as I've been involved in two separate discussions about it in a short period of time, I am concerned/curious about how some people are interpreting (and, in my opinion, pedantically going overboard) the Talk oage guidleines. The argument du jour has been to remove comments on the talk pages (rather than responding to them) for being more directly about the subject of an article than about the article itself. This recently happened to me in response to a question I posted on the talk page of Playmania.

I do have a tendency to ask questions on talk pages regarding the subject of the article, but I believe they are for legitimate reasons: namely, I will not edit a page unless I'm reasonably certain that what I recall or speculate on is correct. So, I feel that in the interests of maintaining NPOV and avoiding edit wars in general, the Talk page is the page an editor SHOULD go to first regarding unclear information about "the subject." Others clearly disagree, but the "write about the article, not the subject rule," when taken to its logical extreme, simply doesn't seem very helpful to me, as basically the only thing it allows you to do is comment AFTER THE FACT on something that may not be factual or relevant to an article. The way some editors here interpret the rules, it's acceptable to watch for possibly false or irrelevant information in an article, and then to point out where it goes wrong on the talk page, but taking the good faith preventive measure of asking the questions FIRST on the Talk page is somehow sacrosanct. Am I the only one here who thinks the the rules of Talk pages need to be somewhat more flexible in order to prevent malfeasance on the pages themselves?

Moreover, if one feels that another editor is abusing the talk page, isn't it considered more appropriate to respond to the comment and explain WHY it's an abuse, rather than just removing another user's comments? In fact, I was under the impression that removing another user's comments on a talk page other than one's own is verboten. Help me out here. ChrisStansfield 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just talking about the subject is not appropriate. If you're talking about the subject with a view to including information in the article, then it is appropriate. You need to make it clear what you are doing and why. Tyrenius 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Starting a talk page

There should be some more information on starting new talk pages for articles that do not yet have talk pages. Guidelines should be set so that all talk pages have the same beginning format (templates, etc.) --bse3 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Disguising Commercial Links as Topics for Discussion

I have seen a site that moved an objectionable external links section to the discussion page. Little discussion has been generated. Is this kosher? DCDuring 11:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Frudulent Emails ???

I received this email today - I believe it fraudulent and should be posted as a warning - I cannot imagine the President of anything email total strangers to transact banking for their company - I did not know where else to post this other than here - can you help???

My name is Jane Oberg and my email address is queencowdesigns@yahoo.com - todays date is 9/18/07 - is there a way to forward this to Pres. Wade - I have opened his home page but my only language is English so I am lost there - thanks for any suggestions or help - JLO

Dear Friend Mrs.Jane L. Oberg,

Top of the day to you.I feel quite safe dealing with you in this business preposition having gone through your remarkable profile on the internet.Though, this medium (Internet)has been greatly abused, I choose to reach you through it because it still remains the fastest,surest and most secured medium of communication.Let me crave your indulgence to introduce myself to you I am Abdoulaye Wade,Presidente executive officer of Star Energy Group plc. We are OPEC members who deal on crude oil and raw material. Go to my website: http://www.senegal-online.com/francais/histoire/presidents/wade/

I will want to solicit for your assistance to help collect a payment that is due to my colleagues for services and supplies we rendered. My colleagues want someone in usa who has ( HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT ACCOUNT ) to receive the fund for us.why we want someone with ( EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT ACCOUNT ) was because of our previous exeperince where our representative run away with our money.

Please if you are willing to assist,I will want you to furnish me with your particulars, so as to enable me give you further details. Please, you have to be an honest and trusted person,as more payments will be made through you in the course of this transaction.And moreso you will be entitled to 10% of every payment that you are able to recieve for us from our customers, and all transfer charges would be deducted from the principal amount.Please contact us for more information via email with the below informations filled out.

YOUR NAME. YOUR AGE:. YOUR STATUS:. YOUR STATE/COUNTRY. YOUR TEL/FAX NUMBERS YOUR COMPANY NAME.. YOUR OCCUPATION.

We look forward in working with you. Presidente Abdoulaye Wade, Star Energy Group plc, Dakar Senegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.254.123 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Posting offensive language on talk pages

I found that someone had written the word "faggots" on someone else's usertalk page. Although it was not directed at the user, it is still offensive; in a case like this, would it be going against the rules of editing someone else's comments to remove the word? --DearPrudence 23:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for offensive language. Unless it was a personal attack, do not remove it. User:Krator (t c) 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --DearPrudence 23:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging?

• Should we really merge that article to this page? Is it the same division of work? - RobertLeBlais (In class) [Tuesday, September 25th, 2007. 9:13 am]

The Filibuster

What about filibustering - what I mean is when an editor puts so much material on a talk page that they start to dominate the conversation through sheer volume of comments. This can easily be done in good faith, because sometimes people are just so sure that they are 'right' that if they just keep explaining it enough, eventually people will 'get it'. It can be very hard to figure out what is the consensus on a contentious issue when more than 50% of the text on a page is generated by one or two editors. There doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline to address this... should there be? Dlabtot 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Order on Talk Pages

I'm wondering if there are any guidelines on where to insert comments within a section on a talk page. I've seen people insert comments above others' comments. It's realy frustrating because it disrupts the chronological flow of the section and is disrespectful of those editors whose comments are being pushed downward. Is there a guideline I can reference? Thanks. CWPappas 05:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide examples? Because, discussions generally follow a threaded flow rather than a chronological one, i.e. as shown here: Original post
:Reply 1
::Reply to Reply 1 (made after Reply 2)
:Reply 2 —Random832 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the rule about this?

What do the rules say about removing relevant comments from a discussion? If there is a discussion on a user talk page and you have something to say about the discussion, and you make a completely relevant post, but the owner of that user talk page deletes your comment from the discussion because they "don't like you," and then the discussion continues, is this allowable per the talk page guidelines? Here are the edits which I am referring to: [5][6][7]. Ksy92003(talk) 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi! If this had occurred on an article talk page, it would be a problem and would be considered vandalism. But this occured on a user's own talk page. Although users don't own their own talk pages, they do have a certain amount of additional leeway with how they manage them that they don't have in article talk pages. The user doesn't have to answer you, and doesn't have to listen to you. I would discuss the matter on the article talk page only, and not attempt to bring it up on this user's personal talk page again. Once again if something like this happens on an article talk page, or another user erases things from your own talk page, it would be another matter. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the topic was first brought up on the user talk page by another user, and it was about a user's edits in general on a widespread basis, not just one or two articles, making it impractical to discuss this on an article talk page. I understand that a user can remove somebody else's comments from their own talk page, but if that is the case, then how would I be able to get my point across on an important discussion if he doesn't let me take part in the discussion? In my opinion, if the comment is related to the discussion that is already going on, if you have something important to say, then the other user shouldn't be allowed to remove that comment from the discussion, even if it is because he doesn't like me.

For the record, the other user, Chrisjnelson, has been blocked 7 times already (unblocked once because Chris promised to stop his actions, and was blocked wrongfully for 3RR another time), and he has had a bad history with me ever since I noted that he was making many personal attacks towards another user, so it's no surprise that he doesn't like me, but I honestly think that Chris shouldn't be allowed to remove my comment if it is completely related to a discussion that is ongoing on his talk page. Ksy92003(talk) 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

pbeudloamgc62

With alarming figures being published about obesity in the United States, it has become a cause for concern among health experts and the people in general all over the world. In the United States, 58 million adults are overweight, 40 million are obese and 3 million suffer from life threatening obesity. There has been a 76 percent increase in diabetes in adults between the ages of 30—40 years since 1990 because of obesity. Although, physical –exercise and balanced diet are best probable ways to avoid weight augment, but if afflicted by obesity drugs are perhaps the only solution, together with a diet plan and exercise. Diet pills are mainly for those suffering from serious obesity. Obesity is a complex disorder and it arises from the accumulation of excess fat in the body from over consumption of fatty foods. Unlike drugs for other serious diseases like malaria, tuberculosis or diabetes, it was only in 1959 that F.D.A (Food and Drug Administration of U.S.) approved Phentermine resin as an appetite suppressant useful for cure of obesity. It was in 1997 that Fen –Phen, a mixture of fenfluramine and Phentermine was endorsed as weight loss pill, and in a years time it achieved overnight success. By mid 1998, approx 18 million prescriptions were written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.44.211 (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Placement of tag templates/banners

Should there be a section added here to confirm where talk page tags should be placed (e.g. templates such as for WikiProjects, {{oldafdfull}}, {{ArticleHistory}})? Or does such a policy or guideline appear elsewhere? The common practice seems to be that TP tags are kept at the top and should not be archived. We could also encourage compacting multiple similar tags to keep some order at the top e.g. combine multiple WikiProject tags in a collapsible structure, similar to what User:MadmanBot is doing. Dl2000 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of messages from an anonymous IP's user talk page

Elsewhere, it's been argued that removal of a message from a user talk page can be considered acknowledgement of the message, and therefore it's okay for a user to remove said messages from his or her own user talk page. However, I should point out that the same does not apply to anonymous IP user talk pages - the page may be shared among numerous users, and there is no way to know whether an anonymous IP user is the intended recipient of the message or not.

If another user on that IP comes along and removes messages from an IP user talk page, this may prevent those messages from reaching their intended recipient. While one may argue that this is part of the benefit of having a user account, I should note that failure to deliver a message is a problem not only for the recipient but also the sender.

Additionally, a large portion of the comments left on anonymous IP user talk pages are of an advisory, investigatory, or disciplinary nature. Removal of such messages, especially within a short time frame of their placement, increases the difficulty with which other users become aware of problems emanating from that IP address, including other people who happen to make use of that IP and who might be well-served to take notice of such a problem.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that this guideline discourage users of anonymous IP talk pages from removing or archiving comments of less than a certain age (such as one month). (I personally feel the same should apply to any user talk page, but that can be addressed later, I suppose.) --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite obviously, you are talking about me. Anonymous users are already de facto second-class citizen and frequently treated quite badly using ad hominem attacks, false accusation of being a sock puppet, their privacy is violated by archiving IP addresses forever etc. I can assure you and already told you that your message has been received, so there's no point in keeping the text as the next user under that IP address will be a completely different person and there is absolutely no benefit to keeping the message. Actually, removing the text will not make it disappear at all since you can still look at the history. Therefore, I don't quite see the point in your proposal which seems to be inspired by a single event. --NotSarenne 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not talking about you specifically. I've held the position that users should not remove advisory, investigatory, or disciplinary comments from their own talk pages for some time now. The recent event you mention was merely the impetus for me getting off my duff and bringing it up here. I'd like my proposal to be considered seriously, on its own merits, in the context of the implications that would apply not just to one user specifically but to Wikipedia as a whole, just as any policy or guideline should.

As to your assertion that the history is sufficient for a user talk page, I disagree. Information of use to administrators, anti-vandals, and other disinterested third parties appears quite frequently on user talk pages, and permitting users to shove those into the confusing jumble of a potentially long list of page edits prevents those parties from accessing that information easily. Furthermore, in the case of IP pages, an anonymous user may not even be aware that an important edit was made to the talk page if the edit is subsequently blanked. The onus should not be on those people to scour the history to glean what bits of useful information they can, when we can just as easily maintain, through guidelines, user talk pages as an important active resource for everyone. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 05:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're actually trying to achieve. Guidelines can be ignored; any problematic IP editor is going to ignore the guideline. IP editors that don't cause problems probably aren't getting any messages on "their" talk pages, or aren't removing them, or are reading and acting on them before removing them. This guideline feels like instruction creep but without any useful effect. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Headings

This issue has apparently come up yet again on ANI - so: does the section about editing others' comments apply to section headings (which appear in the table of contents, are visually separated from anything with a signature on it, and are meant to describe the entire discussion below it rather than just the first thing the user who brought it up said) —Random832 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, clearly not. I don't interpret Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to mean that headings fall under the category of "Others' comments" or "editing comments." Headings are everybody's responsiblity, not just the person who posts it. By analogy, if I wrote a heading, "Joe Shmoe is a moron," and then proceeded to discuss a specific problem I had with Joe Shmoe on a talk page, I would hope that somebody would change this heading to reflect what is actually being discussed and something that would not beg the question. Thank you. --GHcool 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A good thing about Wikipedia is that it's not a bureaucracy. For rulings on very specific cases like this, best see WP:IAR and try to apply common sense and reason. User:Krator (t c) 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that sometimes people deliberately misconstrue someone's actions (using this guideline) in order to make them look bad. The section I linked is not the only time I've seen it happen. IAR should only be for extraordinary cases; if it has to be used for a routine act like changing a section title, there's something wrong with the rule that's being ignored. —Random832 14:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. In my opinion, headings on talk pages should be treated with similar attention to NPOV as headings on article pages. --GHcool 00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The section in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines that says 'Keep headings neutral' seems to anticipate that other editors will intervene to change the wording of non-neutral headings. In the above-cited ANI incident User:GHcool's header modification seem to push the envelope. In particular, his claim that

I've taken the liberty to change the title of this debate because I feel that it misrepresents the issue and begs the question

doesn't fall under the heading of changing for neutrality. There is no carte blanche provided to change others' comments (or headers) in a Talk discussion if you feel they misrepresent the issue or beg the question. Start your own section (with a new header) if you insist the issue is wrongly stated. EdJohnston 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If what he changed it to, or his comment accompanying the change, was a problem, that'll be covered by civility, NPA, or whatever - I just think it needs to be made more clear that changing a header is not per se a violation of anything. (and, anyway, I can't imagine how a comment specifically asserting that the original header was not neutral could cause the change to not fall under changing it for neutrality; if it would have been otherwise. If it would not have been, his comment doesn't change that anyway so why mention it?) —Random832 13:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: [8] is one of the edit in question (and shows what the original heading was). "slander" is a very serious accusation and may even fall under WP:NLT (interpretations of NLT in edge cases like these tend to vary wildly, but it is at least within the mainstream that using a legal term of art to accuse someone of something actionable constitutes a legal threat) —Random832 14:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

revisions to meet notability standards

Hello - I made the recommended revisions (removing "peacock" terms, providing published 3rd party sources about subject) today. I hope this addresses the notability concerns. Thanks. Psipe 16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviations and acronyms in Wikipedia articles

This comment stems from your entry for Medicare Part D, but concerns Wikipedia practices in general.

Our society seems to have gone hogwild over abbreviations and acronyms during the past 30 or 40 years. Therein lies a mutual problem for both Wikipedia and its readers. As I read along, I encounter some abbreviation, such as MMA in your entry for Medicare Part D, and I'm stumped. What's that stand for? If I search diligently through the prior part of the entry I can find it, but it takes a careful, diligent, time- consuming search and (as with MMA) it might turn out to be tucked away in some odd niche, not in the preceding prose, where one would expect to find it. Because the use of abbreviations and acronyms has become widespread, texts -- yours are relevant here -- are loaded with them, and for readers to cope becomes time wasting, not to mention annoying. In other words, it's a problem.

There's a solution to the problem.

Enter a list of abbreviations and acronyms at or near the beginning of the text. Alternatively (but less handy for the reader) enter the list at the end, but with a notation at or near the beginning that the list is down there at the end (as an appendix). 75.36.159.152 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Lank Felsen at lankf@hotmail.com

The first sentence in Medicare Part D is: "Medicare Part D is a federal program to subsidize the costs of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. It was enacted as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) and went into effect on January 1, 2006."

I don't really think it requires "a careful, diligent, time-consuming search" to find, nor is it actually "tucked away in some odd niche, not in the preceding prose, where one would expect to find it" Dlabtot 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That being said, I went ahead and wikilinked it. Dlabtot 18:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reformatting a section

Generally speaking, is it acceptable practice to make minor formatting changes to a talk page for better readability of the code? I'm simply talking about things like adding spaces or extra lines between comments, which makes it easier to read from the edit window. I didn't see anything on the project page discussing this; perhaps we could add something? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can assume that such minor changes are covered by common sense. Adding or deleting blank lines should be harmless, and I think it is OK to change the indenting of others' comments when it makes the sequence of exchanges more clear. Fixing their spelling errors, though, can cause angry reactions. People are generally entitled to have their comments remain on the page as they were originally typed. EdJohnston 03:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tonsils

I could not find information about the value and function of the tonsils. If they get infected by certain bacteria/germs, etc., they are usually removed. However, what impact do those bacteria/germs, etc. then have on the body once the tonsils are removed. The article could be expanded to deal with the issue of the value of the tonsils. Are they a filtering organ to block germs and bacteria? What happens when that filter is removed from the body? thanks for some clarification in the article.

63.174.94.2 15:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This project page discusses the guidelines for talk page discussion on Wikipedia, and has absolutely nothing to do with tonsils. Perhaps you're looking for the article on tonsils? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)