Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

WP:OWNTALK

Editors are permitted to archive or remove content from "their own talk pages", but I am wondering what is counted as one's own talk page in the case of someone with a dynamic IP address, such as myself. It happens from time to time that someone will post a comment to me on a talk page for whatever IP address my ISP happens to assign me this time around that results in a discussion. That discussion can go on for a while, meaning that sometimes when I come back to reply again, my IP address is different. In such cases, I always make an effort to make it clear that I am the same editor so as to avoid confusion about the different address. Now if I had a static IP address or were editing from an account, there would be no issue of whether or not I could archive or remove discussions. It seems to me that if a discussion were about editing I was involved in and the conversation were directed to me and I participated in it that I should be able to count the talk page as "my own" for the purposes of archiving or removing those discussions, even after my ISP has assigned me a new IP address. Does this seem correct? 99.192.90.228 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This issue has bothered me for a long time. In my view, the ability of an editor to remove content from their talk page should NOT apply to IP addresses, whether Geolocate says they are static or dynamic (Geolocate isn't always correct, and I don't know how to verify whether an IP address is static OR whether it will always remain static). I understand that some comments are directed at the individual currently logged in as that IP and it is understandable that they may want to remove it. However, (a) there's no way of verifying that point and (b) Wikipedia needs the history of the IP account on the talk page itself, not just in the revision history. If an individual wants more control of their talk page, they can register.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup as far as I have always been aware, it doesn't apply to IPs. Atleast that is how I have see it treated in the past. And that is how I would want it to be treated. -DJSasso (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems logical. --Nouniquenames 17:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• If we were to change OWNTALK to indicate that it doesn't apply to IPs, we would also have to take into account WP:BLANKING. As it is currently worded, an IP cannot remove "templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address." The implication of that prohibition is that they can remove other material.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does imply that. Anyway, if we make the change you have in mind, we can simply start the sentence about specific items not to be removed with something like "in particular, you may not remove...". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there an actual page on which this is a problem? NE Ent 21:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:99.192.59.98 seems to be the page which prompted this discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh. So I set up ClueBot to archive the old stuff. Problem solved? NE Ent 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, this is something that comes up often. I've reverted IP's removal of information from talk pages, but because the "policy" is unclear, when they've reverted back, which they have, I've dropped it. There doesn't have to be a current page on which this is a problem; it's a recurring problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have publicly stated my personal view that the benefits of mandatory account creation would outweigh the downsides, and one such benefit is that it would avoid to dealing with the complications of single editors using Wikipedia from ever-changing IP addresses, which confuses the applications of guidelines such as this one, but also proper edit attribution. I do not believe changing this guideline to accomodate the particularities of accountless editors to be needed and while I understand the current consensus that users should be allowed to edit without an account, I think there is no reason not to encourage recurrent contributors to register and autoconfirm (or confirm) in order to access the full range of Wikipedia's functionalities. Salvidrim! ✉ 01:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously. Just register an account. There's literally no reason not to. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 05:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally in agreement that if an IP editor wants to maintain continuity across multiple IP addresses, even to the extent of "archiving" content on an IP address that is not his own, then really an account is the method to obtain that continuity.

I certainly do not agree that IP editors should be denied the same rights that registered editors have. We do know that most IP editors will be editing on IPs previously used by people other than themselves. We also know that registered editors are editing on accounts that should not be used by people other than themselves. On that basis, IP editors should have more right to remove warnings that do not relate to them, not less. Our not being able to "prove" that the warnings relate to them is neither here nor there - see WP:AGF.

After all, the purpose of allowing unregistered people to edit is to encourage their editing; how encouraging is it if they make an edit to improve a Wikipedia article, they see an orange bar with a complaint about them, they click on the orange bar, it lists warnings which they know do not relate to them (the warning also mentions that possibility, remember), so they rightly remove the warnings, and immediately they have some guy restoring the warning and telling them not to do that! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

One way to avoid that result would be for the IP to respond to the warning rather than remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Which registered editors could also do - but we don't force them to do it. So my point stands.

A large proportion of IP editors don't even understand why it is that their IP address was previously used by a different person, never mind manage to respond thoughtfully to messages left for that different person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Registered accounts are kind of like residences with long term leases. You gotta follow some rules the landlord sets, but you can pretty much decorate however you want. Dynamic IP address accounts are like hotel rooms -- you're there for awhile and then you. If you check into a room and find the maid didn't clean up very well you should be able to take out the trash. So if the current user of an IP address wants to dump a message, what exactly is the harm?? NE Ent 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty poor analogy. It is typically IP editors who leave crap all around the place that needs cleaning up. WP:OWNTALK requires an OWNer -- something manifestly lacking with IP usertalk pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the last few points, I don't think anyone here voiced anything against that -- a user on an IP address is perfectly entitled to blank his own talk pages, whether it bears warnings of earlier users of the same address or they were meant for him. This is more about editors whose IP address has changed, and wish to maintain the same rights over the pages of their previous addresses. Like keeping the keys to your previous hotel room, if you wish. At least that was the OP's original question and that's what I responded to. Salvidrim! ✉ 03:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The original question is not what is now at issue here. I am proposing a change to the guideline.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You've not provided any form of coherent rationale for such a change. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've copied all of the above to WP:VPP and added an introduction.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a very strong reason why IP address users should not be permitted to manage their talk pages in the same way as registered users can. A registered user's talk page is the property of that user. The talk page of a static IP address may be the property of a single unregistered user, but even a static IP address may be shared between multiple users. Allowing an unregistered user to archive or delete vandalism warnings from the talk page would be a terrible idea; it would allow vandals to conceal evidence that there has already been a vandalism warning, or multiple vandalism warnings. It would complicate the job of experienced editors reverting vandalism in deciding what level of warning to provide, and of administrators in deciding whether it is time to block. This issue in particular arises with blocks assigned to schools. It is true that an experienced editor or an administrator can view the history of a talk page and see that there were warnings that have been deleted, but it would complicate a function that should be straightforward. Permitting IP addresses to delete messages from their talk pages would be a gift to vandals that would outweigh any benefit to the community. This is a case where unregistered users should not have the same rights as registered users. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Exceptional cases

1) Any edit to any page, including an IP's talk page, that would qualify for WP:Revision deletion can be removed by anyone at any time. WP:ATTACKs, WP:OUTINGs and other egregious WP:BLP violations (editors are usually living people) are the most likely to show up on an IP talk page, but it is possible that WP:COPYVIO and other revision-deletable material may also show up.

2) The same applies to edits which would qualify for speedy deletion, such as a test edit that inadvertently (WP:AGF) corrupted or removed content from a page. Because no "second eye" is needed to edit (vs. deleting a CSD-tagged page), extreme care should be given when judging whether "speedy delete" really applies.

The point being: An IP editor has at least the same rights to edit other people's content on "his" current or former page as a logged-in editor has to edit the same content on the same page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of non-English language on own User Talk page

Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, or where, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large.

I've noticed many editors talking to each other in languages other than English on User Talk pages, and done it in special circumstances myself. Question: Is this wording above intended to raise User Talk pages to the same standard as article Talk pages in this regard? Has there been a previous discussion to apply the same standard? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone there? Seems this page gets almost no traffic. see also Wikipedia talk:User pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I did get one reply (thankyou SmokeyJoe) at Wikipedia talk:User pages. WP:OWNTALK obviously overlaps. As that comment agrees with my own opinion that editors should not be sanctioned for occasional reasonable use of their own language on their own Talk pages I propose the following distinction between article Talk and own User Talk:

Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, or where, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia article talk pages, and if possible also on ones own User Talk page. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large.

Suggested additions in bold In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe leave message on my Talk page if anyone replies. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I added it, if only one the basis of one comment and no objections. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A minor but necessary correction was added – normally the conversation on someone's talk page is initiated by someone else, and responded to in whatever language it was in. Since this is the English Wikipedia, most editors here have some command of English, but since some are known to be more proficient in another language, that language is used. It would be odd to say that you can reply to others comments in whatever language you want (the expression pardon my French comes to mind), and no one else on your talk page can use anything but English, even if both are very poor at English and very proficient in some particular other language. Apteva (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The words "No matter to whom you address a comment" have no meaning, as in consensus decision making all comments are directed to the group and never "to whom", and on user talk pages, the comments are solely directed "to whom" is the owner of that user talk page. Apteva (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been criticized for my revert. In this instance, I think the criticism is valid. I thought Apteva's changes were the first changes (didn't see In ictu oculi's change). Although In ictu oculi referred to the talk page, Apteva did not, so I thought Apteva was being bold on their own. The current status of the English section is based on the last change by In ictu oculi, which, ironically, has an error in the English (smile). Now that I've thrashed the history out, I think the pre-existing and the newer versions are both convoluted, so I'm going to suggest new simpler language that I think incorporates what you both want. I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm wrong. My intent is to make it simpler. Mainly, the first sentences are affected, and then I wanted to make a few minor changes to the rest of the paragraph. Here's the new section (minor chages bolded):

It is preferable to use English on all talk pages so comments may be comprehensible to the community. If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so but cannot, you should [omitted either] find a third party to translate or [omitted to] contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy.

I'm going to make the changes now and wait for feedback. My apologies for the earlier reversion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Much better, but I think we can improve the last sentence. For example, instead of "if you are requested", how about something as simple as, "If a translation is requested, third parties or Wikipedia:Embassy can help." Apteva (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the simplicity of it, but to connect it to the preceding sentence, how about: "If you cannot translate the comments, third parties or Wikipedia:Embassy can help."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me. I hope that everyone will feel free to add "Translation?" wherever needed. Apteva (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say "it depends." If others being able to read the comment in English is important to the project, it should (must?) be in English, or at least be accompanied by a translation or by a summary with an offer to translate. If it has little bearing on the project, such as "congrats on your latest FA, good job" or "Nice photos of [recent local Wiki gathering], hope to see you next year" then I see no harm in using a language other than English. If someone is curious, they can copy-and-paste the text into an online translator and get the gist of it and realize it wasn't important to anyone but the parties involved.

Remember, editors can delete comments from their own talk pages, effectively making them invisible to editors who don't take the time to dig through the page's history. Is having a non-English comment any "worse" from a "keep everything out in the open" perspective? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the suggested changes to the text under discussion: I think they are unnecessary but I will not block consensus to change them. "Preferred" says it all: It is clearly not a "rules violation" to use another language, but you may get pushback or a request for a translation from other editors if you do. If there is any change to the text, replace "preferred" with "strongly preferred" or "very strongly preferred." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There are some situations where you can expect NON-English use and should not chastise users for doing so: In certain project pages that cater to the needs of non-English speakers, in situations where a non-English-speaking person from another-language Wiki is talking to someone here at that person's explicit request (I for one have instructions on the Commons and several non-English Wikis directing people to my English user talk page) and any resulting reply, and where a non- or limited-English speaker has a sense of urgency to make a comment due to a perceived emergency (for example, reporting a multi-language persistent vandal/spammer to WP:ANI) and he doesn't think to use an automatic translation tool. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not praise

We say "Do not praise in headings: You might wish to commend a particular edit, but this could be seen in a different light by someone who disagrees with the edit."

That's a very strong command, and it is pretty silly. Don't say "Congratulations on Featured Article of The Day" in a heading? That's "praise" and it's in a heading. So why exactly shouldn't we say things like that?

As for it being "consistent", that list already fails to be consistent, since the four items run "Do not", "Do not", "Don't" and "Never use". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to fixing those inconsistencies (I noticed them). Your inconsistency was substantive as the points are all imperative except your revision. The talk page link you provide is a good example of something that shouldn't be on a talk page - even the person who posted it sensed it ("I know that this isn't a conversation forum"). Finally, even a command may have exceptions. The issue is whether there is a sufficient number of exceptions to use a weasel word like "avoid" and if you can somehow explain what those exceptions are.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Avoid" is also an imperative. "You should avoid ____" is the conditional; "Avoid ____" is the imperative.

IMO a section heading that contains praising words like "Congratulations" is perfectly acceptable. Moreover, it is commonly done, which means that it has widespread acceptance in the community. Furthermore, this section isn't about article talk pages, but includes WikiProject talk pages and user talk pages, so it would ban sections like Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive W#In praise of Wikipedia editors as well. Maybe instead of softening this rather inappropriate command, we should think about removing it altogether. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Headings just need to be neutral. Praise is not neutral. Apteva (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Other namespaces

The talk page guidelines say

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply."

Recently, a question came up on a noticeboard about whether the talk page guidelines prohibit collapsing of comments that violate the noticeboard guidelines but are not generally prohibited on talk pages. For example, arbcom does not allow comments about content disputes, DRN does not allow comments about user conduct, RSN doesn't allow comments that have nothing to do with reliable sources, the reference desk doesn't allow medical or legal questions, etc. Is collapsing of comments that violate the noticeboard guidelines allowed? If so, should this be made explicit in the policy, or would that just be unneeded instruction creep? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of noticeboard sections where comments that violated the noticeboard guidelines were hatted or collapsed:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Restating the request

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive128#User:Peter Ian Staker reported by Jeannedeba

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jzyehoshua#Abortion Controversy

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive76#"Free Roman Polanski" Petition

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive79#Thor Halvorssen Mendoza

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Comets and the swastika motif

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 25#Garydubh and Republic of Ireland postal addresses

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Where we get personal

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/National-Anarchism#Ideal lede from the PAKI.TV

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Is making the case for critics in a criticism section original research?

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Osho Rajneesh - selective sourcing

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 69#Can the book The Hockey Stick Illusion be used

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive73#Inappropriate claims at MfD

As far as I can tell, most of those collapsed comments would have been allowed on an article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hatting them is fine. It is less direct and less dictatorial than deleting them, and allows participants to get back to business. There are some discussions that do need to be deleted, though. Apteva (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for opinions to see what consensus is, my opinion is that Project discussion pages that are managed by an active "management group" such as ARBCOM or an active WikiProject can have different guidelines than Wikipedia as a whole provided that those who "own/manage" those talk pages have arrived at their own consensus. However, such talk pages are still subject to Wikipedia's policies. When it comes to WP:OFFICE-managed and possibly WP:ARBCOM-managed project talk pages, I'm even willing to allow OFFICE and possibly ARBCOM to overrule Wikipedia policy in talk pages they manage if there is a clear legally-mandated (as per an explicit action by OFFICE's legal dept.) or non- or minimally-controversial reason to do so, as those groups arguably have the right to unilaterally change policy in exceptional circumstances (OFFICE's legal dept. obviously does, beyond that things are not as clear-cut). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Mis-use of "FAQ's" and other header-embedded items to enshrine or further one's opinions

I've seen this at many articles. Typically this is where there there is an ongoing tussle at the article (which typically is where the article covers a topic where there are opposing factions in the real world). And some person or faction embeds their arguments, or material supporting their quest, or material which will help their efforts in talk as "FAQ's" in the talk page. Of course they do it in a way that subtly does this. This puts it in a place that has prominence and doesn't get archived, and has the appearance of authority.

I believe that something should be added to this guideline to reduce that type of activity. Something like: "Except for standardized customary notices, contested or controversial material should not be put into the talk page header." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

North8000 makes a very good point, but I think we need a better wording. I am thinking of the FAQ at Talk:Muhammad, which was placed there because it was contested and controversial, and it was explicitly written to support one faction. It's OK in that case, because a lot of work went into establishing that the "no images of Muhammad" faction, though large and vocal, are going against Wikipedia consensus and policy. On the other hand, we don't want to allow that to happen when it's just an ordinary content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the bar should be pretty high. Low enough to allow the special case that you described, but high enough to exclude trying to eternally "lock in" the results of a routine RFC. Maybe add another exception which would be group decisions where it was determined that policy (not just opinion) clearly determined the result. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. That sound like the right way to approach it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

How 'bout this: "Contested or controversial material should not be embedded into the talk page header. Exceptions to this are items which are clearly routine or customary notices, or notes on decisions where there was a strong consensus that Wikipedia policy dictated the result. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That kind of wording is just going to give every passing wikilawyer an excuse to demand removal of the FAQ—I contest the FAQ, so prove policy dictated the result! For example, Talk:Evolution has quite a long FAQ which does not get much of a workout these days. However, what if a finger-in-ears editor turns up and demands that each point be proven to be dictated by policy because this guideline requires it? That would be unnecessary noise. Like everything on every page, a FAQ can be edited (or removed) by consensus, and if necessary an RfC can be used to get wider discussion. However, why give another reason for disruption? Another example is at Talk:Barack Obama where the FAQ is just a summary of previous arguments so they don't have to be dug up and posted whenever a new editor wants to raise an old point. Lots of people disagree with what happens at that page, but changing the talk page guideline would not help. Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right, John. The fact that the FAQ at talk:Barack Obama is just a summary of previous arguments, as you point out, didn't stop this recent edit war over it — did you see that? I had to block the stubborn editor. Finger-in-ears editors don't need any extra excuse for wikilawyering about a FAQ, when the article is highly contested. But I guess the proposed wording would have made the situation worse. Bishonen | talk 14:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC).

IMO, FAQ's are typically one person's version of what has been decided, or a construction to help that POV prevail. And yet it is embedded in a place that has more permanence and imprimatur than the opinions of others. IMHO, for that type of a thing in the header, "when in doubt, take it out". The header is a place for header stuff, not a place to embed one's opinions, nor a tool to help one side's POV prevail. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think North8000 makes a very good point. It isn't at all obvious what wording best addresses the various concerns brought up in this thread, but they are all legitimate concerns, and we do need a clear policy on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't. I'm sure that FAQs have been misused on occasion (what feature hasn't?), but by and large they are written to reflect consensus and to deter an endless parade of IPs and newbies from reopening archived discussions that dragged on ad nauseam to the detriment of everyone's time, attention, and patience. Without an FAQ, many a talk page watcher finds himself or herself answering the exact same question over and over and over. It's understandable that some editors are unhappy when the consensus-based wording in an FAQ conflicts with their own views, but that's life and that's Wikipedia. We absolutely do not need instruction creep in this area. Rivertorch (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's review, shall we? User:North8000 says that he has seen many articles where a person or faction embeds their POV in a FAQ, thus avoiding archiving and giving it prominence and the appearance of authority. He wants the guideline to say that contested or controversial material should not be put into talk page headers. User:Rivertorch says that most FAQs reflect consensus, that contested or controversial material should be allowed in FAQs, and that our answer to editors who are unhappy with opposing POVs in FAQs should be "that's life and that's Wikipedia."

It appears to me that this can easily be settled by looking at specific examples provided by North8000 and evaluating whether the FAQ reflects consensus, as Rivertorch claims, or whether there is a clear bias towards one POV. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Settled? Perhaps. Easily? Not a chance. (And your paraphrase of what I said isn't quite on the mark, but I'm not in the mood for what may be viewed as quibbling.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Point well taken. I encourage the reader to read North8000 and Rivertorch's own words in context rather than relying on my imperfect paraphrase. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Homophobia. But North8000 can't say that cause of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchiveNorth8000_Discussion NE Ent 09:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the one that brought it to mind / a catalyst was a recent/current friendly debate about one at wp:rs. In this case, being on a guideline page, where it has/had the higher impact of giving the impression that it was policy. But I've overall drawn from observing a continuous stream of them over time. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have thought about a "2 birds with one stone" solution. On one hand, we have the problem that FAQ's tend to embed/enshrine one person's or one side's preferred "take" on something. On the other hand, important decisions or pseudo-decisions at an article seem to be quickly forgotten when there is not some note on them. Not that they can't change, but awareness of them is good. What about something that (on contested items) just notes the topic of them and then links to them. Maybe up to 6, weighted by an informal combination of the scope of participation, clearness of any decision and how recent it was. That way those retains some visibility/prominence but people can look for themselves instead of reading one person's embedded/enshrined opinion on it. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not "one person's . . . opinion". One person may write it in the first place (as is usually the case with all content on Wikipedia) but anyone who contributes to the page is free to discuss it, change it, expand it or remove it. There's nothing special about FAQ content: it's subject to consensus in the same way that everything else is. Rivertorch (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that would be ideal, but I believe that in practice most editors treat it as more embedded / enshrined / "official looking" than that. Also I believe that only a minority of people know where to find the text to edit it, it's not on the page. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So Wikipedia ends up have a talk page discussion about a talk page about an article ... often dubious and contrary to consensus can change anyway. NE Ent 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am still looking for a good argument against adding some variation of "Except for standardized customary notices, contested or controversial material should not be put into the talk page header." to the talk page guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems backwards. I'm still waiting to hear a good argument for adding it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support GM's suggested edit. NE Ent 09:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines do not spell out all the things that should not be done. Of course there should no contested or controversial material in a talk page header, but is the FAQ at Talk:Evolution "contested and controversial" because some creationists support that view? What is the actual problem that people are trying to solve here? If there is something contested and controversial in the header at Talk:Homophobia, would someone please spell it out, then start an RfC so it can be removed. However, changing this guideline would not help that process. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are good points. Based upon the above arguments, I have changed my mind (is that even allowed on the Internet?). The added wording is not needed. Sorry, North8000. It seemed like a good idea at the time. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I think that we just saw an example of it considered to be more entrenched by at least some. Johnuniq sort of just said that you need an RFC to change it. North8000 (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about the background to Talk:Homophobia, but I infer from some comments made above that there was a controversy there, and given the topic of this discussion I assume a FAQ on that page was involved. If an editor does not like a FAQ, discuss it on the talk page concerned. If local consensus does not support the concern, and if there is reason to believe that the general community would disagree with the local consensus, start an RfC. If a creationist were to do that regarding the evolution FAQ, we would hope that the RfC would be closed early because it is disruptive to revisit old battles with a known outcome. At any rate, it would not help if a guideline stated that a controversial FAQ is not permitted because one side would believe the FAQ is controversial, while the other would assert that it's not. Johnuniq (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how this got derailed into talking about one particular article. Again, my catalyst for thinking about it was a recent/current friendly discussion at wp:rs, and the perspective that I'm drawing from is seeing it at many many articles during 32k of manual edits. But I plan to set this aside for now. If I bring it up again, it would probably be a different approach, which is to just say that material of that that type in the header is subject to the same editing practices as the material on the article page. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Assuming I understand it correctly, I agree with what you just said. Rivertorch (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy's suggestion amounts to "Let's ban all FAQs". It would also appear to ban customized headers, like the ones directed at newbies to tell them that they're on the wrong page, because those are not "standardized", and anything could be "controversial". I once had a lengthy dispute with someone who thought that the WP:1.0 team assessment of "his" article was an insult. I oppose it. At minimum it fails to communicate what it intends to ban; at best, it adds another needless layer of bureaucracy.

North's problem does not appear to emanate from an article. It appears to be about lingering dissatisfaction with the FAQ at WT:V and WT:RS, which can be read at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/FAQ. I suggest reading it. If you've spent any significant time at RSN, you will recognize those questions as being frequently asked ones. North's problem, if you're curious, is with the item that says you may not remove verifiable, well-sourced material solely on the grounds that you personally know that the sources are wrong. He has failed on WT:RS to convince anyone that this is actually wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So far that's two people that have made 2 different wrong guesses that I had only one article in mind and different guesses on which article it is. I actually have about 8 in mind. As I mentioned above, that friendly discussion at wp:rs there is what reminded me to bring this up, but is not the reason. Also the title of this thread is NOT applicable to that situation. The entry there (that I wass discussing) is a good faith effort to impart useful advice. I actually left that discussion about 2 weeks ago. The result isn't perfect/preferable, but I'm not unhappy with it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that "Guy's suggestion amounts to 'Let's ban all FAQs'." if anything, my suggestion was to ban one-sided FAQS written by one side in an ongoing unsettled dispute without banning those that have a consensus supporting them. BTW, asking a simple question like "it sounds to me like your suggestion amounts to 'Let's ban all FAQs'. was that your intent?" goes a long way toward finding a consensus and avoiding misunderstanding. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm ready to either shelf my effort on this or to evolve this conversation further depending on what others here think. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Where's my orange bar of doom?

I just logged on and it took me several minutes to notice the little (2) next to my name indicating I had two new messages. After six years I am kind of used the screaming orange bar popping up on every page I look at until I check my talk page. Was this just a bug or did we do away with the orange bar? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

New feature NE Ent 00:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is supposed to be back next week. See the RFC for discussion. Apteva (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Avoid Excessive Emphasis addition

The section Avoid Excessive Emphasis, also known as Wikipedia:SHOUTING states that the use of ALL CAPITALS is considered shouting and should be avoided, restating a rule that predates Wikipedia and has been accepted by the Internet community, since the Internet was the ARPANET. It says to use bolding and italics sparingly. So far, so good. However, on one article talk page, a user has used a different method of shouting, and that is to introduce a Wiki command to increase the font size by three levels. I would like to add a mention that increasing the font size on a talk page is considered shouting. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In particular, the editor inserted something to the effect of: " Reliable scholarship <font size="+3">not just (XXX) scholarship</font> ". The effect of that is even worse than block capitals. I would like to add a mention that increasing the font size on a talk page is shouting. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was bold and went ahead and added the language. I also gave the user a trout for coming up with a new way to shout. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I amended it by removing the word "Wiki", because AFAIK there is no Wiki markup which changes font size, other than ==...== which is used to make headings. Markup like <big>...</big> and <font size="value">...</font> are pure HTML markup, whereas <span style="font-size:value">...</span> is HTML markup which achieves its effect by using CSS for the actual styling. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, as long as increasing the font size is discouraged as a form of shouting. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Not creating 4-5-6 new current threads on same topic

I looked through and couldn't find anything about editors who create 4 or 5 brand new main sections, separated by other new threads from the original section; and this is in the same week - ie during current discussions. This to keep discussing the same topic, long after it's clear no one agrees with them. I put the first four together, now there's # 5. Did I miss the guideline here or is it somewhere else. Very frustrating. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is adequately covered just by saying that "Before starting a new discussion, ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic. Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic." The Talk:LewRockwell.com page is a good example of what not to do in terms of directing comments to participants instead of to the topic, though. Comments are never directed to a participant, and are always directed to the group. This does need to be better clarified. Apteva (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, we have been bringing things back on topic lately. Thanks for quote; was looking too much in bad practices. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I hear that the mobile software has a significant limitation on this point, so the user may be unable to comply with the best practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

new lines between comments or not?

An editor insists that there should be no spaces between subsequent comments left by editors and goes so far as to remove spaces that other editor intentionally insert. His reasoning is that it affects screen readers. Is this something that we should state outright here and enforce or should we state that this is not something that should be manipulated? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's already here: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#fixformat. Elsewhere, WP:LISTGAP refers to the accessibility issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

adding blank lines between replies currently bloats the HTML, making the pages slower to load. if you want to have the MediaWiki software remove them, then you could always make a request to change the parser. Frietjes (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That is for lists.

by using : you are generating dd/dl tags, which are lists. Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussions are not lists. As a result, that guideline does not apply to discussions. If you want it to apply to discussions, we should explicitly state that here. I'm sorry you do not understand that.

then don't use wiki-markup that generates html list tags? Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical load times are not a consideration for editing. I was told that three years ago and I will stick to that policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

so we should request some mediwiki software parser to condense the redundant markup. seems like a good idea. Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is an ordered list

1. One
2. Two
   1. Two point one
   2. Two point two
3. Three.

This is an unordered list

• One
• Two
  • Two point one
  • Two point two
• Three.

My talk page comments are not lists regardless of how Wikipedia decides to render them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No. You were (almost certainly) told that processing time is not a consideration for editing. WP:LISTGAP specifies (my emphasis) "including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons - including talk page discussions)". The lack of understanding, or refusal to do so, is yours. Hint: which HTML element is used to mark up your comments? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I was told that load times are not a consideration for editors because that was my concern for the page rendering times for the article at the time.

The lack of understand is not mine because I know how Wikipedia renders discussion, but it doesn't matter since discussions themselves are not lists. If that's a problem for browsers or screen readers, then the mark-up should be changed, not our editing behaviour.

As for self-serving additions to guidelines, I will ignore it for now, thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you were mis-informed. And having been given two citations, another reason why list-gaps are harmful, and additional explanation, you're now in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Walter, you could always read through this discussion that covered exactly the same ground. I don't think I can be clearer about the problem than that. Please do a favour to all of our visitors who use a screen reader and don't put blank lines between posts in threaded discussions. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Which screen readers suffer from this problem? I know that there are several on the market and not all treat mark-up the same way.

As for the citations, one was created by an editor with a vested interest in this discussion.

So the question still remains, why is this not formalized here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As I told you above, in the very first reply to your original post, this (as much as anything is) "formalised" here: It's already here: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#fixformat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance is not a policy.

It is unfortunate that we're (ab)using definition-list formatting to indent threads in discussion. Eventually WP:Flow will render this talk page kludge obsolete. In between now and then, I suppose that we have to balance the needs of visually impaired editors with the needs of editors who have trouble seeing whose comments are where in the edit window. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

'Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance' refers specifically to servers, not to the HTML delivered to users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. This question seems to have been lost in the discussion: Which screen readers suffer from this problem? I know that there are multiple readers and the two I have access to don't behave the same way. I'd like to know which readers were reported as having this problem and which don't. Obviously this has been examined thoroughly.

Also, it appears that my other question has not been addressed. Since we are discussing a the talk page guidelines, not lists, should we be including this information here or not? I accept that someone has reported the issue in at least one screen reader so I'm not opposed to formatting to help those with visual impairment, but we should codify it in as many places as is possible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

See my comment at the accessibility guideline talk page]. Graham87 03:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

How many users of screen readers have complained about some talk page discussions being easier to access than others? I would really like to see at least on or two diffs before accepting as a fact that this is a real-life problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Affected readers may not complain. They may just give up. We don't need complaints about each individual issue before we comply with world-wide, industry-standard, ISO recognised accessibility guidelines and use correct and semantically valid HTML. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Affected readers may not complain" doesn't cut it. If even one out of a thousand complained, you would be able to produce multiple examples. I have a better theory. From my web research (I have not verified this personally) starting with JAWS version 5.0 (2005) users could jump from one item in a definition list to another, thus allowing skipping to the next term. My theory is that JAWS doesn't behave the way you say it does.

As for rendering times, at User:Guy Macon/sandbox you will see an experiment I did with adding lines between comments. Adding four linefeeds added 150 bytes to the HTML source. Compare this with the Wikipedia globe (19,670 bytes) the Javascript (7,523 bytes) or the wikimedia button at the bottom of the page (2,426 bytes). --Guy Macon (talk)

Where do I "describe the way JAWS behaves"? As for the file size of images, most users of screen-readers that I have encountered have them turned off, for reasons that should be apparent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Affected readers may not complain" does cut it. You only need to ask Graham and he'll tell you that folks using screen readers learn to put up with the crap that we impose on them. My guess is that's because they know that folks like Guy are just going to find some reason to dismiss their concerns. I don't care if we find a hundred complaints or none; we know there's a problem; we know there are people who will be affected; we know there's an easy solution: just don't put blank lines between indented discussion posts. Why do folks who are already disadvantaged have to jump through hoops just because you're too self-centred to acknowledge the problems you cause to them? --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You claim that "You have already been told by a screen reader user that at least one common screen reader is caused problems by the practice of leaving blank lines between indented talk page comments",[1] but when I asked "How many users of screen readers have complained about some talk page discussions being easier to access than others? I would really like to see at least on or two diffs before accepting as a fact that this is a real-life problem".[2] your only response was the rather insulting "folks using screen readers learn to put up with the crap that we impose on them. My guess is that's because they know that folks like Guy are just going to find some reason to dismiss their concerns."[3] So again I ask, where is the diff to an actual screen reader user who says that this is a problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a fact, not a claim. Graham is an actual screen reader user and he's told you that the problem exists. He links to it about six comments above. There's your diff. So which part of "As far as I can tell, JAWS doesn't read out the definition lists in Wikipedia discussions unless there's another list in the mix (whether it be ordered or unordered). However, NVDA always reads them out. Therefore it's still a good idea to include the talk page exception here." didn't you understand? --RexxS (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Presently, it's only a claim, and only for two readers of a field that contain dozens of products. There are no WP:V or WP:RS to support it. Didn't you understand? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't a claim. He uses the words "as far as I can tell". That's how you describe doing web-based research by reading manuals and help files, which is what I did as well. It isn't how you describe doing original research with your own screen reader. As far as I can tell, all screen readers from 2005 on handle both cases identically. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So then why are we going through this discussion? Is there any proof that screen readers stumble or give excessive formatting information to the listener when a talk page with additional spaces between comments are encountered? I would like to see a single complaint or talk page forum post or anything. I'm completely in favour of assisting the disabled and complying with accessibility guidelines, but it doesn't seem as though this is actually a problem and so it falls to personal preference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The weird thing is that I have the exact same preference, but a different solution. It bugs me when Wikipedia's HTML has extra cruft in it. Yes, I have to purposely view the source to even know that it is there. Yes, I know that the difference in load times is too small for humans to detect. Yes, I realize that in one YouTube session I put more load on the internet than all of Wikipedia's extra-line-related HTML cruft put together. No, I have no evidence of anyone being affected by this. Yet it still bugs me. My preferred solution is different, though; instead of trying to force everyone to not use extra lines (which do make it easier to read the edit window -- paragraphs were invented in the 1800s for a reason), I would like the developers to write better Wikitext-to-HTML routines. Of course I can't ask for that, because as discussed above I have no evidence of anyone being affected by this. :( Sometimes you just have to accept the things that bug you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

But of course, you want to bug lots of users, not editors, because we know full well that there's a problem. Yet you want to claim it doesn't exist unless a reader complains. That's really not how accessibility works. It works by identifying potential problems, checking to see if they are actual, then taking steps to alleviate the effects. Anybody who's designed web sites with regard to WCAG will be familiar with that process. It's not necessary to wait for a litany of complaints to arise before taking preventative action. Here's the potential problem: a blank line between items in indented talk page discussion causes the software to terminate one list and start another, so a screen reader will have a confusing jumble of html to read out. Here's the actual problem: JAWS does that when another type of list is mixed in; NVDA does it always. Here's the solution: either (1) fix the Mediawiki software so it doesn't stop/start a series of definition lists when it encounters a blank line; or (2) failing that, give editors guidance to avoid those blank lines until it is fixed. Of course, your preference is to pretend there's no possibility of a problem because you don't want to see it. And of course, what you can't see, doesn't exist, does it? --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Third time you've been told --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Anybody who's designed web sites with regard to WCAG will be familiar with that process". Do not appeal to WCAG or WCAG 2.0 unless you know that they call this an accessibility issue. I have yet to find any documentation on how they expect lists to be formatted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WCAG is perfectly clear about how to format lists - H48 shows you that a list is a single container (ul, ol, dl) that groups related items. You want to break up related items into multiple lists arbitrarily. You should also be aware of W3C recommendation 10.1: "We discourage authors from using lists purely as a means of indenting text." You will note that Techniques for WCAG 2.0 explains that " Authors should test techniques against the user agents and assistive technologies currently available to their users." - the onus is on authors to test whether the html they produce meets accessibility needs. The is no presumption that WCAG can anticipate every possible issue that causes an accessibility problem. Here you have seen that a potential issue has been identified (a blank line causing the closure of one list and the start of another); a user giving a practical example of the problem for the visually impaired (NVDA reading out all of the closing/opening of the lists); and a guideline to help editors avoid the problem (don't put blank lines between indented talk page discussions}. Yet for reasons unknown, you seem to want to make life harder for disabled visitors by preventing the guideline being made explicit. It's time you swallowed your pride and did the right thing - it's easy for those who are not affected by disability issues to stand in the way of improving Wikipedia for those who are. --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't know the difference between WCAG and WCAG 2.0 and yet you continue to speak as though you know what they're saying.

What they do show is a set of examples. They do not show that a list with extra breaks or spaces is not allowed, and unless I'm mistaken that's what we're discussing. As soon as you learn that rule and can see that there is currently no consensus, we can discuss this. The question is whether or not we add a section to these guidelines to explain how to format talk page discussions and that has not been reached. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

We should follow standard practice and listgap (no spaces between comments). NE Ent 12:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The portion of WP:LISTGAP where the policy was expanded to explicitly apply to talk page comments was added two weeks ago by an editor who is now quoting the rule he wrote as policy[4][5][6][7][8] and now you are calling this two-week-old rule "standard practice" despite the obvious fact that there are a lot of folks who do it either way. I personally don't care one way or the other about whether added lines are allowed, but I very much care about what appears to be an attempt by some editors to take something they believe to be an implied rule -- while other editors don't think any such rule is implied -- and turn it into an explicit policy, all the while bypassing our policy on consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In the examples you give, no-one is referring to this as a policy - a term that has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. LISTGAP has always applied to talk pages, since they use definition lists. Not breaking up lists in this manner is "standard practice" for competent web authors, globally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

See the discussions there; it's clear to most that the guideline doesn't apply to the way we implement threaded discussions. I think it probably should generally apply, but there may also be good reasons for the blank lines, both visually (for users who are visually abled), and in the edit window (to separate subthreads which _should_ be separated). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Separate subthreads can be started by out-denting. {{Od}} and other templates are available for this purpose, though none is required. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) If editors are not clear that LISTGAP doesn't apply to the way we implement threaded discussions, then their misunderstanding needs to be addressed. The way to do that is by clarification, not by denying that a problem exists. Screen readers read html, and don't know that the definition list was created by our clumsy attempts to produce "threaded" discussion. I fully agree that sub-threads should be separated by a blank line, and a screen reader user hearing one list closing and another starting can properly associate that with a new sub-thread - but only if we don't haphazardly scatter blank lines throughout parts of threads that belong together. It is indeed easier in the edit window to identify individual contributions if we leave an extra blank line; but that trades off a slight convenience for editors against a confusing nuisance for visually impaired readers. We're writing this encyclopedia for the benefit of the readers, not the editors. --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidence, please. You are only guessing about "confusing nuisance for visually impaired readers". You have no way of knowing whether screen readers treat the case of added lines and no added lines differently. You are asking us all to accept this as a fact on blind faith. Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Fourth time you've been told --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:LISTGAP is part of the Manual of Style, and is a guideline, not a policy, so let's be accurate. The text before the edit war was:

• "Do not separate list items, including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons) or an unordered list, by leaving blank lines between them, since this causes MediaWiki to end one list and start a new one."

and the disputed text was:

• "Do not separate list items, including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons - including talk page discussions) or an unordered list, by leaving blank lines between them, since this causes MediaWiki to end one list and start a new one."

So, which of the edit-warriors wants to justify their reverts of the second version on the grounds of "a change of policy"? Who is going to state here that the addition of the words "including talk page discussions" is a change of policy and a not a simple clarification? It is indisputable that Mediawiki software uses colons to produce definition lists and it is equally indisputable that every editor involved in this sorry fiasco use colons to indent their comments in talk page discussions. Those words are not a change of anything, but an unarguable statement of fact. It is an inconvenient truth that we have a flawed mechanism to format our talk page discussions; it is equally true that LISTGAP applies to those discussions. What possible rationale can exist for not making that clear to editors to whom LISTGAP applies? --RexxS (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) RexxS, You have been repeatedly told that some of the other editors think that your "simple clarification" is "clarifying" the policy by adding something that is not there in the first place. If I were to change our policy page on edit warring from "don't edit war" to "don't edit war unless your first name is Guy" that would also be a "simple clarification" -- if everyone agreed that the Guy exception was already implied. If, on the other hand, multiple editors don't believe that the rule already has a Guy exception, then that edit would be a change of policy and a not a simple clarification. Likewise, the addition of the words "including talk page discussions" is only a clarification if that is already the policy, an assertion that I and others disagree with. You can't build your argument that a policy exists upon the assumption that the policy exists. That is the begging-the-question fallacy.

Also, please stop insulting other editors. Comments like "folks like Guy are just going to find some reason to dismiss their concerns", "Walter, you're just looking for any excuse to justify your untenable position" are unacceptable. Your antics are becoming quite tedious. As another user wrote: "You have a real attitude problem. How you've managed to be here this long without sanctions is beyond me".[9] Please stop insulting other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And you have been repeatedly told by at least two other editors that a problem exists, and yet you frivolously decide that you know better. Unlike your analogy, the clarification of the guideline doesn't depend on everyone agreeing on making an exception for you - although that's what you're asking for here - it depends solely on the fact of whether a problem exists. The problem does exist, no matter what denials you make. You dispute that blank lines cause a problem for screen readers; Graham names a screen reader that exhibits the problem (and mentions that another reader shows the problem under some circumstances). Yet you wilfully refuse to accept that there's a problem. If there's any tendentious editing going on here, it's coming from you. Then you have the nerve to accuse me of insulting other editors. Your treatment of editors who are only trying to do what's best for visually impaired readers is what is unacceptable, and I find such a callous attitude towards the disabled disgusting. That's what makes it even worse. Add the guidance: if you're right and I'm wrong, we are creating a minor inconvenience for some editors; if I'm right and you're wrong, we are removing a source of confusion and annoyance from a group of already disadvantaged readers. There's just no comparison. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidence, please. You haven't the slightest clue as to what's best for visually impaired readers. You are just making wild guesses and trying to bully other into accepting them as if they were established facts. Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk)

Fifth time you've been told and you know nothing at all concerning what I know about visual impairment, so quit the ad hominem. Kids like you need to be kept away from topics where you can cause problems for disadvantaged readers. --RexxS (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) To begin with {{od}} semantically indicates that the comment is a reply to the previous comment, but the indentation is too deep to be reasonable. It does not indicate a subthread, although it almost certainly will cause a break in the list for screen readers. A blank line would be a better choice if it really is a distinct subthread.

As for RexxS's comment, the fact that structured conversations are rendered as lists, does not mean they should be considered lists for the purpose of consensus at WP:LISTGAP. It requires an additional consensus that it should generally be done. I don't doubt that such a consensus can be obtained, but there are likely to be more exceptions than in lists intended to be considered as lists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Returning to an earlier topic, the most ardent ISO recognized accessibility guideline I know of is WCAG 2.0 and it says nothing about this subject at either http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/H48.html or http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/H48 so perhaps we could be enlightened as to which ISO recognized accessibility guidelines we are discussing with a direct link to the guidelines please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Our indented conversations are rendered in html as lists. How can anyone not consider them lists for purposes of accessibility? At present they are lists and screen readers will treat them as lists, no matter how any us want to "consider" them. What sort of consensus are you looking for just to point out to editors that putting blank lines between indented discussions will cause problems for some screen readers? Are you trying to keep it a secret? --RexxS (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Walter, you're just looking for any excuse to justify your untenable position. You have already been told by a screen reader user that at least one common screen reader is caused problems by the practice of leaving blank lines between indented talk page comments. Yet you demand more and more evidence. The WCAG guidelines apply to all websites and, as far as I know, Wikipedia is the only website that inflicts this particularly poor practice on its disadvantaged readers - and the problem is created by the markup we use in wikitext, not the html that WCAG concerns itself with. Why do you think that WCAG would want to produce a guideline just for Wikipedia's wikitext? Particularly when the solution is simple: Don't leave blank lines in the wikitext between indented talk page comments (unless you are starting a new sub-thread of course). --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you RexxS, I am actually looking for answers. That's why I am an editor on Wikipedia. I clearly did not make myself clear. What I'm looking for is the "ISO recognised accessibility guidelines" described here. I would like to see them to confirm this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Walter, I didn't spot that, but I think my comment above remains pertinent. WCAG isn't going to write guidelines specifically to cover our aberrant practices, so I doubt you'll find a URI that condemns what we do. Does the lack of external criticism from WCAG make my argument against the blank lines any less valid? --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not asking for WCAG guidelines specifically, I'm asking for the guidelines that were referenced in that statement. Before we can "comply with world-wide, industry-standard, ISO recognised accessibility guidelines" we have to know which guidelines we're complying with, and possibly more to the point, how breaking a list breaks compliance with them.

To make the point more finely, it may not even be a "world-wide, industry-standard, ISO recognised accessibility guideline" that we're discussing. It may just be an implementation of a single (or multiple) screen reader(s) that apply their own arbitrary rules for displaying lists. So the "comply with world-wide, industry-standard, ISO recognised accessibility guidelines" would be the easiest place to start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have to put the blame on everybody else but yourself? It's not a question of asking multiple screen readers to change their rules to suit the way we misuse definition lists. It's a question of a few editors who want the rest of the world to change just to accommodate their own pet predilection for scattering blank lines between items in wiki-markup. --RexxS (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no blame only a request for this guideline.

I'm not asking anyone to change their rules, I'm asking for proof that it's a problem.

It's also not a few editors. It's many editors.

If it's really a problem, we need to make it part of the these guidelines. If it's not, we need to stop pushing the point. However until we have the actual facts, there's no reason to do anything different.

So while you're doling out advice to other editors, I'll dole out my own to you put-up or shut up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to you what evidence I find of a problem, you'll always want more. Graham has been a screen reader user for many years and he tells you " ... NVDA always reads them out." It's in plain English and gives you the proof there's a problem with at least one common screen reader. Yet you want still more evidence. What's next? Are you going to blame NVDA and tell everybody using it to buy JAWS at $1,000 just so that you can carry on with your peccadilloes? It really is a problem. We do need to make it clearly part of these guidelines, and you need to stop obstructing that very process. --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:"It doesn't really matter to you what evidence I find of a problem, you'll always want more", Try me. So far you have not provided the slightest shred of evidence, so how do you know how I will respond? Re: "Graham has been a screen reader user for many years and he tells you...", Prove it. Give me a diff where he indicated that. Or is that also evidence that you refuse to provide because you somehow know ahead of time what the reaction will be? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Graham posted in this discussion at 03:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC), pointing to his post where he said "As far as I can tell, JAWS doesn't read out the definition lists in Wikipedia discussions unless there's another list in the mix (whether it be ordered or unordered). However, NVDA always reads them out. Therefore it's still a good idea to include the talk page exception here." There's your diff. Did he indicate that or didn't he? This is the second time I've shown you. Aren't you getting sick of playing games of IDIDNTHEARTHAT yet? --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

JAWS Standard: US $895 http://www.freedomscientific.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp.

And I have warned you before not to put words into my mouth. You don't know me even though you pretend to.

It does matter what evidence you provide. We have so far reported on two products. I'm curious what sort of market share each has. We have browser statistics and know exactly what percentage of IE6 users come here and we know what problems they will face when they come here and make decisions based on that. Why is it a stretch for us to do the same with screen readers? Why are we going to force everyone to follow a procedure for one person a month, when that one person doesn't even mind? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's what you're saying: "I want it my way and it doesn't matter how much evidence you provide I'll always want more". Exactly as I predicted, you ask for evidence; I provide it; you now want more evidence; more products; more information on market share; and so on. Suffice it to stay that nobody knows what fraction of readers use particular assistive technologies, nor what the absolute numbers are - it's not recorded in server logs as browser type is. I find your argument quite offensive: people can choose to upgrade IE6 to a standards compatible browser, but nobody who is blind has any choice about that. What gives you the right to speak for readers who are affected? - As far as you know it could be thousands of readers a month affected and they may well all mind. Figure out the difference between editors and readers if you can. How about you start providing some evidence of the problem caused by eliminating blank lines in indented talk page discussions? How many complaints have you had? Who is affected by not having them? The answer is that you've not demonstrated any problem with the clarification that should be made beyond your "I don't like it". --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You're just plain wrong. You don't like what we're doing so you use some side issue and can't prove that it's actually a problem. In the old testament, they stoned false prophets. You're either stoned to believe what you're saying or you should be stoned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This all seems pretty heated for such an issue that is so unimportant to the average editor.

Walter, could you please tell me how exactly you'll personally be harmed by formatting comments in whatever way the resident experts on this issue say is supposed to be best—or at least by not reverting them if they clean things up later? And if you're not actually harmed by it, then why are you wasting so much time fighting with them about it? Don't we have something more important to do than to argue over whether they're right on some obscure detail of HTML accessibility rules? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when you say to not revert the resident experts on this issue if they clean things up later, does that include resident expert RexxS "cleaning up" by deleting added lines, resident expert Guy Macon "cleaning up" by adding lines, both, or neither? (No, I am not implying that I plan on doing such a thing. I am just pointing out that the definition of "cleaning up" depends on the answer to the question we are discussing.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question, readability for the able is hampered. Separating the comments with a line break makes it easier to follow the flow. And we're not talking about me alone as I have seen many, many editors do this. That is why I am asking for proof that a problem exists for screen readers and that we add a section to the guidelines to encourage editors to format in the best way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

This does indeed seem pretty heated for such an issue that is so unimportant to the average editor, but it becomes important when Pigsonthewing (AKA "Andy's edits") starts removing lines that other editors purposely put in[10] and edit warring to get his way[11][12][13][14] while quoting as justification a "policy" that he himself added less than two weeks previously.[15]

Now RexxS is an interesting case. If you look past the bluster and personal attacks, he does seem to be attempting to back up his position with at least one bit of data, which is a post by Graham87[16], who uses the JAWS screen reader almost exclusively and uses NVDA as a backup when JAWS crashes[17]. Graham87 reports that JAWS has no problem with added lines in talk page discussions, but NVDA does. I am not sure what version Graham87 is running or how it is configured (more on that later).

My extensive research cannot find any evidence of any NVDA or JAWS version produced later than 2005 or 2006 that does not read definition lists as if they were just text. If you look at This chart, you will see that this is around the time when Wikipedia started becoming popular. During my research, I ran into multiple websites like this, which found that "NVDA'S behaviour here is interesting in that it just reads the [definition list] items without announcing that it's a list or that the terms and definitions have any relation. The content is just read in a linear fashion."

Another gotcha is that the in most screen readers the above behavior can be changed in the configuration. I suspect that somewhere along the llne the "treat definition lists like linear text" went from defaulting to off to defaulting to on.

Finally, I find that thë following linë of argumënt: "Sufficë it to stay that nobody knows what fraction of rëadërs usë particular assistivë tëchnologiës, nor what thë absolutë numbërs arë - it's not rëcordëd in sërvër logs as browsër typë is...What givës you thë right to spëak for rëadërs who arë affëctëd? - As far as you know it could bë thousands of rëadërs a month affëctëd"[18] to bë an intërësting usë of logic. I could, for ëxamplë, claim that somë usërs ëxpëriëncë an ëlëctric shock whënëvër wë usë an "ë" without an umlaut, and thus wë must allways usë umlautëd ë's. If I wërë to thën go on to arguë that nobody knows how many rëadërs gët shockëd, and to point out that as far as you know it could bë thousands of rëadërs a month affëctëd, thë fact that I cannot comë up with a singlë ëxamplë of a rëal përson who is affëctëd is ëxtrëmëly rëlëvant. Thërë is a hugë diffërëncë bëtwëën "wë don't know how many arë affëctëd" and "wë havë zëro ëxamplës of anyonë bëing affëctëd. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that and will makë ëvery ëffort to usë thë diacitical vërsion of "ë" from now on. Man this totally sucks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In conclusion

It seems that there are no actual statistics for this and so we are not going to update the guidelines to recommend the list formatting suggested above. As a result, editors should not be imposing their personal preference on other editors as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You're still tilting at windmills, Walter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he just emptied the magazine of his GAU-8 Avenger at this particular windmill, reducing it to splinters. Your attempt to change this Wikipedia guideline has failed. Deal with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Emptying the magazine of a GAU-8 Avenger at windmills would be even more foolish than tilting at them. No attempt to change the guideline has been made, as has been explained to you multiple times. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOSTRIKE and WP:REDACT

There is a conflict between WP:NOSTRIKE, which "bans" strikethough text for accessibility reasons, and WP:REDACT (here), which encourages it in redacting comments which have been replied to. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#WP:NOSTRIKE and WP:REDACT for a centralized discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flow

In case anyone isn't aware of this already, Wikipedia:Flow is software that is planned to replace our current way of editing talk pages. I would encourage you all to take a look and possibly comment on the project. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Announce: Discussion on regarding {{talk header}} opened at WT:WPAFC

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Use of .7B.7Btalkpageheader.7D.7D.

A bit of background: WP:WikiProject Articles for creation uses a script (the WP:AFCH gadget in your preferences) to add {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} and other talk-page headers to newly-"created" articles. The script also adds {{talkpageheader}}, even though there is almost never an actual discussion yet. If memory serves, this was done at my suggestion in the mistaken (?) belief that this was the right thing to do.

The discussion I opened is to determine if we should keep things the way they are. I am in favor of doing just that. Please go to the WPAFC talk page above to participate in this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"Keep on topic"

Recently there was an addition to the page encouraging "keep on topic". It was rightly reversed. However, I got to thinking and perhaps we should discuss that addition. It seems logical, as an addition to a thread that does get off-topic is either a)new comments ignore that errant comment. b)someone makes a comment (sometimes not so nice) telling the editor that the comment is off-topic. c) someone turns the new comment and any responses to it into a new thread because it was off-topic and distracting to the current discussion. Such a small courtesy addition would not be instruction creep as it simply codifies existing Wikipedia ettiquette as a preemptive requirement. It wont solve the problem, but it may encourage new editors to not switch topic in the middle of a discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that it would actually improve matters. Instead, it would likely result in certain users claiming that, whereas a given fact or source is distinctly inconvenient to their POV pushing, it is "off topic" and therefore anyone who mentions it is "violating the guidelines". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There are situations where it is natural for discussions to move on to other related topics. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on editing other user's article talk page comments with Flow

Wikipedia:Flow is a planned improvement to the way MediaWiki software handles article talk pages. There is an RfC about how to configure Flow regarding editing other people's article talk page comments. Your input would be welcome. The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Flow#Request for Comment on editing other user's comments with Flow. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkpages that only have banners or are redirects - indicator userscript

See User:Anomie/talklink. I've tested in Vector, and really like it.

Talkpages that are empty or only have templates on them, have orange Talk tab labels. Talkpages that are redirects have green Talk tab labels (changeable in your css). So good and useful. (Someone asked a related question in VPmisc, which reminded me of this script, and I thought it worth mentioning here). –Quiddity (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverting interruptions

The guidance at WP:TPO says:

• Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt an editor's long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add ...[comments] below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). ... One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption. If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found. [emphasis added]

Is this to suggest that one editor may revert the other's comment? I think not. Recommend that the last sentence be revised to say "Upon request of an editor, interruptions in a long contribution should be reverted and posted elsewhere." – S. Rich (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is so rarely done that it (the interruptions topic) should probably be removed from the guideline entirely. Monty₈₄₅ 17:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the "posted elsewhere" sense is what was intended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How to discuss references on a talk page

What is the best way to refer to sources in talk page discussions? For example, if I want to discuss a famous essay I can't use a <ref> tag since there is no reflist. I could use an ordered list like this (see citation 1) but I'm wondering if there is a better way.

1. Gould, Stephen Jay, & Eldredge, Niles (1977). "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology 3 (2): 115-151. (p.145)

Thanks Andrew³²⁷ 16:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Use {{reflist-talk|close=1}}. The |close=1 ensures the references don't get mixed up with any other reflist on the page. But, if you just want to talk about the citation, then use it without the <ref> tags. --  Gadget850 ^talk 16:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Article improvement

@Guy Macon:, What other ways are you referring to in your edit summary that is not covered in "Discussions on article talk pages should be limited to discussion of relevant reliable sources, the facts and opinions of those sources, and the proper representation of reliable sources (including in matters of WP:Weight and WP:Style)." Seems that covers everything from punctuation to organization to proper summary to identfying sources and citing, etc. I have to run but will check in in several hours. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be an immense list. Besides that, I think that the idea of essentially saying "everything not specifically listed is forbidden from talk pages" is a terrible idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The suggested wording is absurdly restrictive. A huge part of all perfectly valid talk page posts would suddenly be declared inappropriate by this, unless "the proper representation of reliable sources" is interpreted so broadly that it becomes meaningless. Few people would interpret it to include punctuation outside direct quotes, and there are lots of valid topics which have even less to do with "the proper representation of reliable sources". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not cover everything, for the simple reason that WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:STYLE do not cover everything. Just picking one page as an example, It doesn't cover discussions about rewording as discussed at Talk:Lavabit#WikiProject.C2.A0Did_you_know_nomination (all three alternates comply fully with MoS). It doesn't cover requests for information that, if found, might be of use in improving the article, as discussed at Talk:Lavabit#Lavarand.3F, It forbids telling someone to be WP:CIVIL, follow WP:TALKDONTREVERT or to drop the WP:STICK. It forbids asking if something is a copyright or BLP violation. It forbids pointing out that an image is too dark and asking someone to lighten it. You simply cannot pick three Wikipedia policies/guidelines and say that all discussion must involve those three policies/guidelines. Editors need to discuss any policy and any guideline, as long as the discussion is about improving the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Article talk pages are there to discuss how the article might be improved. As long as the discussion meets those very broad conditions it is permissible. Attempting to unilaterally severely restrict those conditions without any discussion is wildly inappropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wildly? Well, our meters of wild are wildly different. But responding to the substantive comments above, it actually does not look that restrictive: style includes punctuation, and proper rewording, copyright and BLP violation, is included in proper representation of sources, questions about the topic, are often referred to the reference desk,. and behavior to the behavior boards, but it's doubtful anyone is going to jump up and down about a minor question or brief aside, no matter what this page says (you got me on the image is too dark but that does not seem like a big topic of discussion, and a little added play in the wording about appearance would cover that). The purpose of guidelines is to actually guide discussion. So, too restrictive, is an odd criticism, although I am sure the guidance can be improved to be less restrictive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Reword: Discussions on article talk pages should focus on policy and guideline compliant presentation of sources, including text and images. "Focus on" is less restrictive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but IMHO it has the same problems, even if softened up a bit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The real question is, what's wrong with "The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article"? That says it all. There is no discussion about how to improve the article that we want to ban. There is no discussion that is not about how to improve the article that we want to encourage (even though we look the other way for minor stuff). Why do we need anything more? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and well said. (But still a thanks for Alanscottwalker for their efforts.) North8000 (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the purpose of TALKNO et al., is to guide editors to what it means in practice to discuss improving an article. We don't assume everyone just knows what to discuss. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As others have said, "The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article" is all that is needed. Talk page abusers will not be dissuaded by fiddling with the wording in this guideline—in fact, the very restrictive proposed wording would only give abusers a wikilawyer-tool to hammer their opposition because good editors often comment in a manner that does not comply with the proposal. Wikipedia does not imprison anyone, so precise definitions of allowable behavior are not required. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What? Imprison? Have you read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines -- the page we are discussing? There is nothing more "restrictive" nor more overly "precise" in the proposed revised wording then is already on this page, which is demonstrably much than that one sentence you repeat, over again. The proposal is merely an elaboration for TALKNO. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's try this another way: What do the commenters above or anyone else mean by "discussing how to improve the article"? Surely there should a consensus answer to that question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the whole point of not bureaucracy. Policies and guidelines do not attempt to precisely specify what is permitted and what is prohibited—it's only in real life where someone might receive real sanctions such as imprisonment that laws have to be precise, with the resulting major expense of a legal system where each word is analyzed to determine whether something is allowed or not. Wikipedia generally operates on the we know it if we see it principle, with WP:IAR thrown in to say that even prohibited stuff might be desirable in an unanticipated circumstance. The question of talk page abuse is very tricky, and I fully support anything that might improve the situation. When WP:FLOW hits (possibly in a couple of months), it will be very hard to tell new editors about NOTFORUM—in fact, it might not be possible for non-admins to remove abuse from a talk page (that situation may be documented somewhere now, but when I last looked all I could see was a major effort to avoid making a clear statement). I have seen many article talk pages abused, but I have also seen excellent editors working on an article where they may spend a few hours relaxing by chatting about something only tenuously related to improving the article. It would not be desirable to give wikilawyers an opportunity to hammer good editors (who never actually abuse a talk page). What is needed is not clearer wording, but stronger enforcement—that is a wikiculture thing, and I don't think the libertarians in our midst would ever allow a consensus that encouraged admins to get heavy with NOTFORUM violators without the normal time-sink involving twenty people spending a week debating the obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about not bureaucracy -- no one is proposing elaborating that. (Beside that fact that NOBURO exists along side NOTAFORUM, not instead of). The know it when YOU see it principal is absurd in light of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, the page we are discussing (moreover, you say we need more enforcement, yet the "know it" standard is directly contrary to that -- but we don't actually need more enforcement, just better self-regulation, which guidelines promote). Spending hours on an article talk page relaxing "chatting about something only tenuously related to improving the article" is not something anyone will even complain about -- people are relaxing, they're not going to complain -- if someone does say something, they will be ignored, someone may point out that they are discussing improving the article (albeit tenuously), or they will all just move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC) amendedAlanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

New thing

Under WP:SHOUTING, (redirect to this project page), I think where it says "The user of markup to increase the font size" should have a modification. Consider raising the font size of "increase the font size" to show what it means. 76.226.121.62 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)