Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Legal or Medical advice

With this edit I boldly made explicit what I believe to be already implied by the existing language. Of course I have no problem if someone disagrees and reverts the change while we discuss it.

Language before my edit:

Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies.

Language after my edit:

Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies. On the reference desks, if an unambiguous request for legal or medical advice is posted, any answer providing such advice (other than simply telling the questioner to consult with a physician or attorney) may be removed. The question should not be removed, but instead should be closed with {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}.

In my opinion, existing policy allows actual prohibited material such as legal or medical advice to be removed, but good-faith questions asking for legal or medical advice are not themselves prohibited material.

Closing the discussion without deleting or collapsing has the following benefits:

It makes it visible that an editor has decided that the question is asking for legal or medical advice. The reference desks have a long history of disagreements about whether particular questions are asking for medical or legal advice. Allowing deletion makes it so that the other editors don't have a chance to disagree unless they check the page history.
It acts a a training tool for other editors posting questions or answers. Seeing the closed question teaches answerers to not answer those kinds of questions.
It avoids biting the newbies in a way that puzzles them. It is a perplexing experience to post a question and then have it disappear.

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

On a minor stylistic note, the final line could be amended:

...should be closed with {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}.

This has the advantage that the text can be copy-pasted whilst also linking the template pages. —sroc 💬 00:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!

In order to get more input on this, I posted notices of this discussion at:

If anyone can think of any other places that should get such a notice, please let me know. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I think the second version is fine but I think we need some acknowledgement that the question has been seen, no answer can be given and it has thus been closed. Simply closing it without a note that says "it can't and won't be answered" might encourage less experienced editors to go the talk page of the asking IP or user to provide an answer. If an experienced editor closes/archives a question like that, they should be encouraged to add a note explaining why it is closed. Other than that, good idea. Stalwart111 07:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I was assuming that the person closing it would add that, but I didn't make that explicit. Once I am confident that my change has consensus, I will go to the reference desk guidelines and add instructions suggesting what should be in such a closing note (with my usual invite to follow WP:BRD if anyone disagrees). --Guy Macon (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought. Could this be achieved by using a tailored pair of collapsed templates (e.g., {{no advice top}} and {{no advice bottom}}) that inserts a standard explanation automatically? —sroc 💬 07:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The reference desks are not talk pages. I will remove this addition. The appropriate place is WP:RD/G which already says about this. Policies and guidelines should avoid overlapping. Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." --Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Oppose new version All Wikimedia sites have a long history of giving legal advice about copyright in telling people what they may contribute, especially regarding non-text media. I expect the community to continue giving this and other types of legal advice which are in the domain of community expertise. In general, I do not like the idea of deleting advice when it is given. When such questions are asked, people should be templated that this is not an appropriate forum. People giving advice should be admonished that this is not allowed. The advice should be hidden in an archive. However, I do not think it should be deleted unless after warnings people unreasonable persist in continuing the conversation with so much as a single post. It is community tradition to try to avoid deleting the posts of people who do not understand how Wikipedia works and to try to be nice to new users. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The talk pages are for improving the article or policy or reference desk or help pages or whatever. They are not a forum for giving advice to people about medical or legal advice. The articles about medical matters an be read by readers. I wouldn't mind a bit of a change in the rules about legal or medical advice on the reference desks, I would support pointers to reference works or articles but no own opinion, but I know people have problems with keeping their own anecdotal ideas to themselves. This is however the wrong place to talk about the reference desks. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." --Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." --Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the top, I have no problem with you reverting my change while we discuss it per WP:BRD, but I have a big problem with you telling Blue Rasberry that he cannot discuss the change. I hope that you are not going to make a habit of this and tell other participants in this discussion that they cannot discuss it, and I urge you to argue your own case and not try to suppress arguments that you disagree with. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can discuss the change here because that is what a talk page is about. What I pointed out was that talk pages are not a forum for discussing personal problems. The reference desk is the only place like that and it has its own guidelines because it is not a talk page. You stuck an irrelevant addition into this guideline and then misrepresented and made a personal attack against a person who removed it and said why. Dmcq (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry, right now there are editors who interpret the current guideline as allowing deletion of both questions and answers. This is not to imply that your argument lacks merit; it just means that if the consensus agrees with you we will have to craft some specific language making it explicit, we will have to seek consensus to change Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, and we will have to make sure that the WMF legal department is OK with it. In other words, it is a proposal for a major policy change which needs its own discussion per WP:PROPOSAL. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon I am not going to propose to change current policy, but for now I do oppose the changes in this request for policy on the grounds that I feel they make Wikipedia less friendly to new users. I am presuming that this change would affect new users. I regret that new users have it hard in existing policy, but at least I do not want to make things worse for them. I know that the legal disclaimer says that Wikipedia does not give legal opinions, but the truth is that Wikipedia gives more legal opinions on copyright than the rest of the Internet put together. I support stating that Wikipedia does not give legal opinions but I oppose new and harsher enforcement of this which would only discourage new users and bring no benefit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, thanks for moderating this. I want to take a conservative stance on this and not do anything new or radical. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair argument and I am glad you made it. I think we are on the same page about being cautious about any changes and this being about what is best for the encyclopedia rather than about "winning". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Why did you put something about the reference desks into the ttalk page gyuideline when there is the reference desk gguideline and the reference desks are not talk pages? Dmcq (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What part of

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." --Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

and

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." --Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus

are you having trouble understanding?

WP:TALK specifically says that it applies to non-talk pages.

WP:CON specifically says that local guidelines such as the reference desk guidelines cannot cannot override pages such as WP:TALK that have community consensus on a wider scale. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Which part of maintain scope and avoid redundancy in WP:POLICY is it you don't understand? You are putting stuff in here about things that shouldn't be on a talk page in the first place and which are already covered in the place they should be in. Dmcq (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy is an unnecessary repetition of information, I would argue that repeating the information here could be helpful, and thus not unnecessary. It's common practice for there to be overlap across policy and guideline pages, for example the redirect guideline repeats information at the linking guideline from the Manual of Style. The deletion policy has information also found in the proposed deletion policy. And so on. This is reinforced by what WP:POLICY itself states, where it says, "When the scope of one advice page overlaps with the scope of another, minimize redundancy." It states to minimize redundancy, not that redundancy is to be avoided at all costs. -- Atama頭 21:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, but why is this an even vaguely desirable redundancy? This is the question I put and was not given any answer to. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This page is the guideline for all pages that facilitate discussion on Wikipedia, as is established in the lead of this guideline. If there is an exception for a particular discussion page to the usual guidelines outlined here, it is worth noting to maintain the usefulness of this guideline and to help prevent confusion. -- Atama頭 21:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that satisfies the 'vaguely desirable' part. But it would apply as a reason to have mission creep and redundancy in practically any policy or guideline. By the same argument we should then start sticking in the whole of the rest of WP:RD/G into this guideline. For instance should we put in a caveat here "On the reference desks we should normally restrict answers to direct answers or referrals to Wikipedia articles, web pages, or other sources, clarifications of other answers, or requests for clarification" Or how about we add "On the reference desks personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers." This is why WP:POLICY guides to maintaining scope and avoiding redundancy, we need good reasons to do otherwise. Dmcq (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If I start seeing ANI case after ANI case about multiple editors violating those rules and claiming that existing policy allows them to do so, I will look into changing the appropriate policy to make it more clear. Right now I am seeing ANI case after ANI case about multiple editors deleting others' questions and claiming that this policy allows them to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be much better if you pointed out a couple of these ANI discussions first rather than coming here and plonking in your own idea of a solution without any explanation and just quoting bits of policies in bold at me as if you thought I was some idiot or a troll. As it is I was getting that opinion of you with your unwillingness to explain or engage. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"The reference desks are not talk pages." -- Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[1]

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." --Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines --Guy Macon 13:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[2]

"...reference desks are not talk pages..." --Dmcq 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"WP:TALK specifically says that [the talk page guidelines] apply to non-talk pages."--Guy Macon 14:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ATalk_page_guidelines&diff=600164870&oldid=600164223

"Which part of maintain scope and avoid redundancy in WP:POLICY is it you're too stupid to understand?" -- Dmcq 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[3]

"Which part of maintain scope and avoid redundancy in WP:POLICY is it you don't understand?" -- Dmcq 18:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (Edit of above comment without changing timestamp)[4]

"As WP:LOCALCONSENSUS clearly states, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." ... Everything in the reference desk guidelines is subservient to WP:TALK, and anything in the reference desk guidelines that conflicts with WP:TALK must be removed. --Guy Macon 02:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)"[5]

[You are] just quoting bits of policies in bold at me as if you thought I was some idiot or a troll. As it is I was getting that opinion of you with your unwillingness to explain or engage." -- Dmcq 10:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[6]

"I personally fail to see how talk pages are supposed to completely override the reference desk guidelines." --Dmcq 11:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[7]

Given your refusal to acknowledge that the talk page guidelines apply to non-talk pages, and the fact that it really does not matter whether you believe it or not, I have concluded that engaging you further will just result in more of the same behavior. I have better things to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was this not posted at the ref desk talk page? Is there some reason other than for exactly this sort of discussion that that talk page exists? This discussion is extremely complex. It is filed in the wrong place. It is not in the form of an RfC. I might be sympathetic, as a hard rule adhered to by all is better than bland advice honored only in the breach. But this is simply out of place, and hence of no use. I suggest it be reposted at the ref desk talk page as an RfC. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Guy JUST answered that. ("Right now…") Still, I don't think the answer is good enough to justify the redundancy. Guy: What can/should we take away, if anything to so that claims that this policy allows them to do so aren't seen as valid? --Elvey (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, I did post notices at

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Legal or Medical advice,

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Legal or Medical advice,

Wikipedia talk:Legal disclaimer#Legal or Medical advice,

Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer#Legal or Medical advice, and

Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Legal or Medical advice --Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As it stands now, these questions should mostly simply be removed. If there's to be any change, it needs discussion there and a change to policy there. Informal inquiries here to GM's opinions are worth what you pay for them. I strongly suggest someone file an RfC at the ref desk talk page, where such a discussion would actually have force. /unwatching. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards. As WP:LOCALCONSENSUS clearly states, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Not editing or deleting others' comments is a Wikipedia-wide policy (and one for which you personally have been reported at ANI multiple times). Everything in the reference desk guidelines is subservient to WP:TALK, and anything in the reference desk guidelines that conflicts with WP:TALK must be removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this what the ANI discussions you allude to above have been saying? A link to some would be a good idea so we can see what the actual problem is. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've found Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_of_the_reference_desks, and in that it is evident Guy Macon was the first one to dispute that queries for legal advice could be hatted on the reference desks with this diff. Their argument is as above that a reference desk is a talk page. So I wonder about the ANI after ANI business - who exactly besides them says that? Well WP:RD/G differs from that for a start as for instance it says "Although the Reference Desk project pages are not strictly talk pages, the same indentation conventions apply." I personally fail to see how talk pages are supposed to completely override the reference desk guidelines. This guideline says "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." It does not say even in the case where there is a specific guideline does this guideline override the other guideline even if the other place is not a talk page. The reference desk guideline does however have a particular line which might cause confusion in this context "When removing or redacting someone else's posting, the usual talk page guidelines apply." Possibly the reference desk guideline could be improved to say where it itself does not apply the talk page guideline applies. There would still be no disagreement as talk pages should not be answering people's personal questions, those sorts of question are appropriate for the reference desks but we shouldn't answer the personal legal and medical queries. Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If we ignore the reference desks and make the guideline about legal and medical advice general in this guideline it sounds to me a bit like WP:BEANS. We'll be stuck with disputes about people sticking stuff in their user talk pages for instance. Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose extra verbiage per Dmcq and Blueraspberry. The refdesks aren't quite talk pages - after all, talk pages are supposed to be for article improvement - the refdesk isn't. There's no need for this policy crossover. I suppose I should explain in a bit more detail: the real problem here is that the policy, especially the medical policy in regard to biological and general health questions, is very contentious and has been the subject of long drawn out arguments in the past. If we have two policy pages that each apply their own standards, that debate would be run between editors using inconsistent standards, trying to alter two different policies. It would make the conflict even more contentious. Wnt (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Inquiry I'm curious, as regards the RefDesks specifically, have there been any blatant violations of the policy of late which have served as impetus for this change? Because insofar as I've always observed, the current wording of the guideline has always been sufficient to restrain contributors, who collectively seem to understand its necessity to protect readers from bad advice in these areas and, more centrally, protect the project from fallout issuing from same. My main concern with explicitly empowering editors to remove the edits of others in any kind of talk or project page environment is that it seems inevitable that some will gradually become overzealous in the exercise of this ability, or will be perceived to be as such, leading to a good deal of acrimony. There is a reason why, in user/talk/project spaces, an editor's contributions are largely considered their own and removed by another only in the most extreme of circumstances. Creating exemptions to that principle should be done only in cases of clear and definite need. In other words, a solution to a non-problem that is likely to spawn its own issues is probably best to be avoided. I'm also persuaded by [[User:Wnt|Wnt]}'s argument concerning convoluted policy fomenting more contentious debate found immediately above. So I lean strongly towards opposition on this one, but I'm not immovable. What exactly are the statistics on how often a piece of advice has been posted that has necessitated removal (be it on the part of the original editor at request or by another pro-active party)? Snow (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Signature cleanup

I've just noticed that WP:SIGCLEAN#Signature cleanup advocates a violation of WP:SIG#NT. I've traced it to the many edits that occurred on 12 January 2010. To save you wading through, the previous form was

If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, you may edit the signature to the standard form.

this was changed to

Signature cleanup: If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information (— {{User|USERNAME}} TIMESTAMP OF EDIT (UTC)) or some even simpler variant. Do not modify others' signatures for any other reason. If the user's signature has a coding error in it, you will need to contact the editor to fix this in their preferences.

and this has since become

Signature cleanup: If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information (—{{User|USERNAME}} TIMESTAMP OF EDIT (UTC)) or some even simpler variant. Do not modify others' signatures for any other reason. If the user's signature has a coding error in it, you will need to contact the editor to fix this in their preferences (but see "Fixing layout errors", below).

I suggest this be amended to

Signature cleanup: If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form that would have been produced without signature customisation ([[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]] ([[User talk:USERNAME|talk]]) TIMESTAMP OF EDIT (UTC)) or some even simpler variant. The {{subst:unsigned|USERNAME}} template may be used for this. Do not modify others' signatures for any other reason. If the user's signature has a coding error in it, you will need to contact the editor to fix this in their preferences (but see "Fixing layout errors", below).

Comments please. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

sounds good. {{signing}} also seems to work. Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the merits of the proposal, can we please fix the punctuation at the end:

...(but see "Fixing layout errors", below).

—sroc 💬 22:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Done that, and amended the above to suit. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, I totally missed that. Thanks for tracing the origin. Your proposal looks good. — Scott • talk 13:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think {{Unsigned}} should be used if the comment was originally signed. –xeno^talk 14:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I've clearly not had enough caffeine today. You're quite right. How about The {{subst:usert|USERNAME}} template may be used for this.? — Scott • talk 15:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes but it would have to be fixed to subst properly otherwise it's going to leave the template junk in the target page. –xeno^talk 15:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it doesn't subst: cleanly, which is the main reason that I made this revert. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That should be easily fixable with safesubst, no? –xeno^talk 15:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Like this, by PC-XT? User:PC-XT/sandbox/Template:User. — Scott • talk 20:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is easier to read, that example could use includeonly tags, instead of the parameter markup. The parameter only lets someone override the substitution if needed, for some reason. —PC-XT+ 20:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Note there is also {{subst:ProbSig}} that I just the other day created because of this problem before I saw this discussion. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- That is redundant to many other user info templates and solves a problem that doesn't exist. TfD. — Scott • talk 14:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
{{User}} should now be substitution-friendly. —PC-XT+ 08:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing own comments (WP:REDACT)

The entire WP:REDACT section is repetitive and should be consolidated. For example, there are three separate references to using <del> tags to strike out deleted comments but only one reference to using <ins> tags to underline inserted comments.

Additionally, the text suggests amending timestamps, if comments are amended the "same day", by deleting the date and adding a new stamp after the time of the original post, the intention being that this would produce a timestamp such as "01:23/13:34, 32 Smarch 2013 (UTC)". This is a bad idea for three reasons:

Timestamps are automatically converted to the user's local time zone and time/date format according to their preferences. This is broken if the usual timestamp is not used. In the given example, the first time is not altered but the later time and date would be.
While the comment might be edited on the "same day" in the editor's time zone, the edit might be on the next date to a reader in another time zone (e.g., the above example could appear as "01:23/01:34, 33 Smarch 2013 (UTC+12)" to another user), leading to confusion as to the date of the original post was made. [Note: in this example, the edit was made more than 12 hours after the original post, however, appears to be only a few minutes later because the first time is not adjusted to the reader's time zone.]
Users can edit the format of timestamps, but this would not be applied to the first time as this would not be recognised as part of the timestamp, leading to inconsistent formatting.

I propose this section be amended as follows:

If it becomes necessary to edit your own comments to correct false information or remove (or redact) personal attacks, follow these guidelines: Where possible, make the edits before other users reply or must step in to amend the text. If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead. Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. Mark deleted text with `<del>...</del>`, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., ~~wrong text~~). Mark inserted text with `<ins>...</ins>`, which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., corrected text). If it is necessary to explain changes, insert comments in square brackets (e.g., "the default width is ~~100px~~ 120px [the default changed last month]") or consider inserting a superscript note (e.g., "^[corrected]") linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation. Append a new timestamp (e.g., `"; edited ~~~~~"` using five tildes) after the original timestamp at the end of the post. Leaving false text unrevised could be worse that substantially altering a comment after someone has replied to the original post. If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps: Add a comment in the edited comment (in square brackets) or below the comment to explain that you made the edit and explain why you needed to do this after others had replied to it. Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change. Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments. For example, if you accidentally posted a comment to the wrong page, and no one has replied to it yet, then the simplest solution is to self-revert your comment.

—sroc 💬 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC) [edited to adjust example timestamps 13:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)]

One of the worse things that an editor can do when communicating on a talk page is leave a comment out of context by removing theirs (or someone else's) or otherwise having significantly changed theirs in a way that now then misrepresents one or more of the subsequent comments. That is why I like that the current guideline states: "Removing or substantially altering a comment after a reply may deprive the reply of its original context, but leaving false text unrevised could be worse. It can also be confusing, so perhaps add '[corrected xx after reply below]'. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:"

And then it goes on to explain those steps. I think all of that is a good thing about the Own comments section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The current guideline seems disorganised as it goes back and forth. It would be clearer re-organised in a bullet list like WP:TPO, which I attempted to do above without substantially altering the meaning. Do you have any suggestions on how to edit the above to better reflect the current version? —sroc 💬 13:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Since no one else has weighed in yet, I'll go ahead and reply to your comment: I don't have any suggestions, except to reiterate that I favor keeping the aforementioned "Removing or substantially altering a comment" aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Note the second bullet:

If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead.

Could we re-phrase the above to address your concern? Alternatively, should the final bullet be amended? For example (changes highlighted):

Removing or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context, however, leaving false text unrevised could be worse. If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps: Be sure to mark up your edits as shown above. Add a comment in the edited comment (in square brackets) or below the comment to explain that you made the edit and explain why you needed to do this after others had replied to it. Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change.

I'm keen to avoid repetition and simplify the guideline without significantly disrupting the intended meaning. —sroc 💬 05:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The "If anyone has already replied" version is not stern enough for me; that's why I stated that I prefer to keep the "Removing or substantially altering a comment" aspect. Yes, as long as you keep the "Removing or substantially altering a comment" line, I can be fine with your changes. The "Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change." line seems to me to be something we should also keep. Flyer22 (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

To be clear then, I understand that you would be happy with this version:

If it becomes necessary to edit your own comments to correct false information or remove (or redact) personal attacks, follow these guidelines:

Where possible, make the edits before other users reply or must step in to amend the text.
If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead.
Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post.
- Mark deleted text with <del>...</del>, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., ~~wrong text~~).
- Mark inserted text with <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., corrected text).
- If it is necessary to explain changes, insert comments in square brackets (e.g., "the default width is ~~100px~~ 120px [the default changed last month]") or consider inserting a superscript note (e.g., "^[corrected]") linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation.
- Append a new timestamp (e.g., "; edited ~~~~~" using five tildes) after the original timestamp at the end of the post.
Removing or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context, however, leaving false text unrevised could be worse. If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps:
- Be sure to mark up your edits as shown above.
- Add a comment in the edited comment (in square brackets) or below the comment to explain that you made the edit and explain why you needed to do this after others had replied to it.
- Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change.

Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments. For example, if you accidentally posted a comment to the wrong page, and no one has replied to it yet, then the simplest solution is to self-revert your comment.

—sroc 💬 14:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems too restrictive for a guideline. The heart of the guideline is 'make any substantive change explicit.' It should not be phrased as "only do mark up this way". If users want to use brackets or small text or explanatory notes, they should not face 'mark up violation!' ... the guideline should just give 'examples' of ways to do it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: So...

Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. For example:
- Mark deleted text with <del>...</del>, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., ~~wrong text~~).
- Mark inserted text with <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., corrected text).
- If it is necessary to explain changes, insert comments in square brackets (e.g., "the default width is ~~100px~~ 120px [the default changed last month]") or consider inserting a superscript note (e.g., "^[corrected]") linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation.
- Append a new timestamp (e.g., "; edited ~~~~~" using five tildes) after the original timestamp at the end of the post.

How is that? If you are not satisfied with this, could you be specific about the change you would like to see? —sroc 💬 21:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OK but I rather think that users feel free to do most anything -- up to including deleting -- to their post before someone else comments on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive ways on how to revise this, if it is not satisfactory? —sroc 💬 02:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Done —sroc 💬 01:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

s vs del

I object to the replacement of <s></s> with <del>, as long as our editing tools support the former but not the latter. This reminds me of the failed effort to rename "talk" pages. --Elvey (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I made this change from <s> to <del> for consistency with Wikipedia:Strikethrough:

Show deleted or inserted text

When editing regular Wikipedia articles, just make your changes and do not mark them up in any special way.
When editing your own previous remarks in talk pages, it is sometimes appropriate to mark up deleted or inserted content.
- To indicate deleted content use <del>...</del>.
- To indicate inserted content use <ins>...</ins>.

Markup	Renders as
You can <del>strike out deleted content</del> and <ins>underline new content</ins>.	You can ~~strike out deleted content~~ and underline new content.

—sroc 💬 22:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would propose that the other guideline be changed instead. I don't actually care about editing tools per se (everyone should use markup; wikimarkup is very simple and I don't see any need not to ask that people learn it). But <s> is just faster to type. --Trovatore (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of that, sroc. I agree with Trovatore. Have asked Cacycle about it, apropos WikEd. --Elvey (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, as long as they're consistent. I assumed <del> and <ins> were superior to <s> and <u> for some technical reason. —sroc 💬 03:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It comes from the Semantic Web, and I agree with Tim Berners-Lee [8]. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, I have no objection to that in theory, but it seems kind of abstract to try to enforce it on users on talk pages. I wouldn't object to giving both options, together with an explanation of why one is better in theory. --Trovatore (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this edit should be reverted. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Care to expand on that with reasons? —sroc 💬 08:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Because agree with Tim Berners-Lee [9], the World Wide Web Consortium[10] and Aaron Schwartz.[11] I could post a long explanation of why I think that the Semantic Web is a good idea, but we already have an article on it: Semantic Web. I would also note that the only argument anyone has posted against semantic markup is that 3 letters are harder to type than one letter. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that we have {{Strike}} (which uses <del>). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, Andy, {{strike}} uses <s>...</s>, not <del>...</del> --Redrose64 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I have a slight preference for <del>...</del> (Do a Google search on "semantic web"). I have a much stronger preference for consistency. Whether we decide on <del>...</del> or <s>...</s>, we should be consistent across help pages and templates. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2014 (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. Monty ₈₄₅ 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)

Concur -- endorsing this practice on the guideline will just give folks something else to fight about ("some cases," "long contribution") vague terms that are just going to lead to trouble. I've removed the section per Monty's suggestion. NE Ent 21:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I would still like to see interruptions addressed, if only to make clear that they should not occur. Deleting the passage saying they are sometimes acceptable does not make it clear that the consensus is (as I gather) that they are not acceptable. I have a strong bias against them because I have probably never seen a case where it aids in improving the related article or otherwise furthers discussion. In the archives, one point was made was that they're usually "tendentious" (perfect word), and I agree with that. Once an editor makes one interruption, they usually go on to interrupt further on a point-by-point basis. Another issue is that it makes further responses to the interrupting comments even harder. An additional objection I have is that it quickly becomes unclear to readers who is saying what, and it is very easy to misattribute words of one editor to another editor. I also have to disclose, I was recently in a protracted discussion with another editor who insisted on the interruptions approach, which drove me particularly batshit, so that's another reason I'd like clarity here. TJRC (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Interleaving was the predominant reply style in the Usenet discussion lists, years before the existence of the WWW and the spread of e-mail and the Internet outside the academic community."-Wikipedia It is also the predominant style on IETF mailing lists. So what you term "interrupting others' posts" has been and remains not just acceptable behavior, but best practice in many important arenas. "Interleaving continues to be used on technical mailing lists where clarity within complex threads is important" - ibid. On Wikipedia, clarity within complex threads is important, and interleaving, properly done, is an effective means to that end and is best practice. As noted here, within many years of discussion history,

Two counterexamples showing that in discussions, top-posting and bottom-posting make for hard-to-read replies.

Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>> Top-posting.
>>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

We (pretty much) all know not to top-post 'round here. Right?

Likewise, consider this message to and reply from a manager:

Tom,
A few questions I know you can answer for me:
Can you tell me what our total domestic unit widget sales were last month?
Also, give me the figure for international sales.
Another thing; we need to schedule a meeting with our regional sales reps who will be in town all next week.  Is Tuesday at 9:30 OK with you?
One more meeting that needs to be scheduled is with the production manager, who's concerned about how our promotional 
plans will impact his production schedule.  Are you free Wednesday at 2:30 to meet with him?
Finally, I thought you ought to know about our new revised policy on use of the executive washroom... they'll distribute a memo on it
eventually, but I thought I'd give you a heads-up by sending it to you now...
[200 lines of bureaucrat are inserted at this point]

20,413; this is up 5% from the previous month.
18,498; this is down 10% from last month, perhaps impacted by the mideast situation.
That's fine.  I'll be there!
That's not so great for me; I've got a dentist appointment then.  I can reschedule it if necessary, but is there 
another time we  can schedule that meeting, like maybe Thursday at 2 30?
Thanks for the information!

(If you don't understand the above counterexamples and you're participating in this discussion, say so. Thx.) The latter's source.

Anyone find the above reply easy to grok, and the following hard to grok? Surely not.

An example showing interleaving can easily produce concise, readable replies.

Joe,

Can you tell me what our total domestic unit widget sales were last month?

20,413; this is up 5% from the previous month.

Also, give me the figure for international sales.

18,498; this is down 10% from last month, perhaps impacted by the mideast situation.

Another thing; we need to schedule a meeting with our regional sales reps who will be in town all next week. Is Tuesday at 9:30 OK with you?

That's fine. I'll be there!

One more meeting that needs to be scheduled is with the production manager, who's concerned about how our promotional plans will impact his production schedule. Are you free Wednesday at 2:30 to meet with him?

That's not so great for me; I've got a dentist appointment then. I can reschedule it if necessary, but is there another time we can schedule that meeting, like maybe Thursday at 2:30?

Finally, I thought you ought to know about our new revised policy on use of the executive washroom... they'll distribute a memo on it eventually, but I thought I'd give you a heads-up by sending it to you now...

Thanks for the information!

I've noticed that some people don't understand how to read or participate in interleaved discussions; when they try to do so, some are frustrated. The appropriate solution is to educate these people regarding this best practice. (See especially "READING:" instruction entries below.) A clear guide would be invaluable. It's both very simple to understand and makes both reading and writing easier, but only after one learns it. And it's easy to learn.

Better tools would also be invaluable. The fact is, with a normal email client, reading and writing interleaved are both easy:

WRITING: All you do is go to the end of each statement you want to reply to, hit enter/return, and type your reply. That's it.

READING: It reads just like a novel. Easier; each contributor's comments are displayed in a color and with an indentation level unique to that contributor, and each contributor is identified right before their first comment begins. To read the latest reply, one just reads the unindented text, skipping everything else.

Currently, on Wikipedia talk pages, reading interleaved text is easy, but writing is difficult:

READING: It reads a lot like a play. Each contributor is identified at the end of their first comment, and at the end of any subsequent section of a comment. Successive replies are indented one level more than the text to which they respond; multiple responses to the same text are sometimes indented the same, but sometimes each is indented more than the previous one. This complicates the reading of both interleaved responses and bottom-posted responses. Coloring is not available.

WRITING: All you do is go to the end of each statement you want to reply to, hit enter/return, and type your reply, using a flush left set of colons before and after your reply to ensure it is indented one more level than the statement you're replying to and that the text after the statement you're replying to remains at the same level of indentation as it was before. (Add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before your reply too; often attribution is still obvious based on indentation level, but if multiple users reply to the same comment, those users' replies will have the same indentation; also, sometimes additional formatting in a discussion makes it hard to identify speakers with just indentation level to go by.) That's it.

As interleaved text is (at least where the tools don't get in the way) a superior communication style,

Well, the notion of "superior" is highly debatable. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

we certainly shouldn't be coming out and telling people not to use it.

Again, that notion is debatable, as the presumption seems faulty to say interleaved text is a "superior communication style" where the interleaved lines might overpower the simplicity of the original message, perhaps interjecting completely false issues, or ramble into tangents which obscure, or perhaps even reroute the original ideas by diverting into tangent ideas such as techniques to augment email structures with interleaved-note insertions, which might be an interesting, or even important subtopic, but far removed from the issue of talk-page rules. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately,

Here, perhaps the word should be "Regretably" rather than "Unfortunately" as considered a side issue about fortunes, or perhaps a better choice would be the words "incidentally" or "totally unrelated to the current train of thought" and yet this line of reasoning shows another danger of interleaved text, in nitpicking the use of a single word, in the middle of the original message. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

our tools get in the way far too much for us to be prescribing its use.

Here the notion of "tools get in the way" seems entirely off-base when considering years of talk-page use with no tools involved, other than the NewPP parser changing tildes "~~ ~ ~~" into a timestamped signature. Hence, any presumptions about the use of tools, as an impediment to interleaved text, seems to boggle the mind about alleged impacts to "prescribing its use". To keep it short here, let's move on to another phrase. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd expect improved communication and less retirement of good editors will result when/if that changes.

At this point, with all these interleaved messages disrupting the original message, it is difficult to discern the antecedent of "when/if that changes" as to whether it refers to the above-disputed "tools get in the way" or some other issue. Please clarify here (ya right, months later). -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Well, "why what" or perhaps say, "Why not?" as the interleaved response here. Also, remember how hermit crabs will test a variety of new shells, each time returning to the original shell, until finding a new shell with a better fit, and also checking for the new shell to be unoccupied by other creatures. Some might wonder the connection here to hermit crabs, but this is clear example of off-topic, tangent text within an interleaved response. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions are less likely to be left unanswered when the response to each question is placed directly after the question.

That notion presumes each response will be, in fact, an "answer" to each question, rather than a twisted, or off-topic reply, which might not be the case in a debated topic where the original message had presented a concise, coherent train-of-thought, but could be confused or obscured by several twisted responses intended to derail the logical flow of the message. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Points of agreement are more likely to be noted when it's easy to note one with a few keystrokes:

Well, use the bolded word "Support" to indicate agreement, followed by a phrase to clarify details. Also, note how inserting interleaved text could warp the original meaning, as if claiming the original poster thought everyone else was stupid, to which they replied below. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"Agreed! <enter>". --Elvey (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Interleaving text above a reply (such as "Agreed") can warp the original meaning and mislead subsequent readers who do not check the date of reply. All rhetorical devices aside, unless a dialogue occurs between cooperative people, in a close timeframe, then it is too easy for opponents to slant the meaning of an original message by inserting twisted wording, as interleaved text, perhaps weeks or months later, when the original user would be unlikely to correct, or clarify, the distorted effects of the interleaved text. In general, there are too many dangers for misguided remarks, or twisting of meanings, to encourage the use of risky interleaved text, especially weeks, months or years after a comment has been posted. Hence, use of interleaved text should be avoided, or moved afterward with snippet quotes from the original message to provide context for each interleaved portion. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Because of my experience with USENET and BBS systems, I came to Wikipedia as a big fan of interspersed posting. As I started reading Wikipedia's bottom posting style I came to realize something.

USENET intersperse-posts because long posts are the norm.
Wikipedia bottom-posts because short posts are the norm.
For free-ranging USENET discussions, long posts are fine,
For discussion focusing on getting the job of improving an encyclopedia done, short posts are far more effective.

I have no answer as to why corporate email on exchange servers tends to be top-posted, or why it so often contains every attachment from every previous message. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(off-topic) regarding corporate email: If I had to guess, I would say that it's more efficient in a business setting to see the new stuff first. Keeping the entire thread including attachments helps with "accountability" and "compliance" issues that are found in some corporate environments. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. It's important to see the latest reply first as that might require action, and it's important that a clear history of the correspondence be easily and quickly accessible. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Instruction creep in the "good practices" section

I've removed the last item, "Use wikilinks not full URLs for internal links; use {{Diff}} for diffs" from the bulleted list of "Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration". It may be nice if posts to talkpages can be streamlined in such a manner, but I'm completely against being exclusionary of the less technically proficient by making such demands as a matter of good talkpage practice. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: what does it matter if people use full URLs? Clicking on them will take you to the target just the same as a wikilink. And how many people actually use {{Diff}}? (I don't.) The technically-minded may find the template helpful, but many people are uncomfortable around templates altogether. How does the way you create a diff affect the reader who clicks on it? (Answer: it doesn't.) These technicalities have no place in a list of important stuff that concerns consideration for others in the discussion, such as comment on content, not the contributor, avoid repeating your own lengthy posts, etc. They're instruction creep. Keeping the list itself concise matters. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

Regarding the first point (only): internal links show up in What links Here only if constructed as wikilinks. If formatted as ELs, they don't. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I won't be so blunt as to say "Who uses 'What links here' anyway?", I know it's useful/necessary for some purposes, but I do think it's a minor point. People nearly always do use wikilinks, because it's simpler; but new users might not be there yet. We should be pleased if they manage to link at all (it's certainly not always the case). We don't want to disinvite them with so many rules and regulations. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

If it's actually important the bot geeks could be commissioned to write a bot that fixes the suboptimally formatted links. NE Ent 12:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

See this edit by Magioladitis (talk · contribs). I rather think that Basilicofresco (talk · contribs) (under the guise of FrescoBot (talk · contribs)) may well be a "bot geek". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen one of the advantages of wikilinks and the diff template is that they create stable urls. In case there is wikipedia makes changes to their url instead of fixing thousands of urls we can only update a single template. I also do not use the diff that often but we ofcourse kindly ask editors to use them in talk pages without denying them the possibility to use that fits them best. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't come across like that when it's in this list, Magioladitis. All the other bulleted points are important matters of talkpage etiquette: you really mustn't do personal attacks, repetitiousness, over-long posts, etc etc, because these practices are actually disruptive. It's not a matter of kindly asking users to not, for instance, attack others, alter other people's posts, etc etc. We do want to deny them the possibility of doing those things. I think your comment really reinforces my point that the matter of urls and diffs, which you now inform me is merely meant as a polite suggestion, doesn't fit in that list. Please put it somewhere else, and include the information that people may do as they like if it suits them better. Maybe a "technical" section? Bishonen | talk 16:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen just to be sure you got it correctly: The bots change wikilinks in mainspace not in talkpage space. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't get that. I thought you were talking about the instruction creep in the "good practices" section of the talkpage guidelines like I was. Weren't you expressing an opinion about the issue I raised at all, then? (Do you have an opinion about it?) Bishonen | talk 17:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

So (again) if it's important ask the bot operators to expand their domain. As a dispute resolution volunteer, the diff is my bread and butter, and it's not worth the extra time of mucking with some template when I can type [] and cut and paste a url from my browser into the space between. NE Ent 17:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

OK here is my opinion again:

Fixing wikilinks is a common practise in mainspace
We do not lose anything if we ask editors to use wikilinks/{{diff}} in talk pages instead of plain urls.
I see no harm if bots visited talk pages and updated wikilinks/{{diff}} in comments to make text easier to read and urls more stable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone takes this as a "Thou shalt always" commandment, rather than a "Hey, there might be a small advantage to this less-common style", then the harm could be significant and pointless drama. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis, There needs to be some caution about this, since some (though very few, i suspect) of the links that were posted in an external format might have actually been wrote that way for a reason -- e.g., to force https or plain http as the protocol for accessing some content. -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I use Special:Diff, though {{Diff}} has more options, so I'll probably use it, sometime. Wikilinks are always nice. I think these should be recommendations, rather than requirements, though I wouldn't oppose some guideline saying it is ok to change urls to wikilinks. Converting to {{Diff}} would probably be ok, too. —PC-XT+ 06:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC) (Since Special:Diff goes nowhere, an example is Special:Diff/12345, which is an old diff on the article Congruence (geometry).) —PC-XT+ 06:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Layout

A minor technical aside: there's been an "anchor hi-jack" here, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout stops at one of the bullet-points within Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good_practices_for_all_talk_pages_used_for_collaboration instead of going to the first sub-section of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Technical_and_format_standards. At the very list this "shortcut" ought to be highlighted just as "EXHAUST" is. But i really think one of the two should change. Problem is, how many incoming links were for the section and how many for the bullet point?! -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the actual topic that i want to clear up: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#WP:INTERSPERSE says Whitespace is also not necessary between any lines within an indented or bulleted list... but what, pray tell, is an "indented list"?! -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

They are talking about the wikitext in this comment.

This is a separate line with a new point.

In HTML jargon, this is a type of list.

Or it can be done with bullets.
This is another type of list.
None of these lines have a blank line ("whitespace") between them.

Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

HTML has three main kinds of lists (plus some obsolete types). These are:

the ordered list, enclosed in the <ol>...</ol> element - created in Wikimarkup by using # (the hash sign);
the unordered list, enclosed in the <ul>...</ul> element - created in Wikimarkup by using * (the asterisk); and
the association (or description) list, enclosed in the <dl>...</dl> element - created in Wikimarkup by using ; and : (the semicolon and colon).

This last one has had various names down the years: when first introduced in HTML 1.2, it was called a "glossary (or definition list)"; this settled on "definition list" in HTML 2.0 and the name was retained in HTML 3.0, HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.0 but in HTML5 is now known as an "association list ... (a description list)". Whatever its name or true purpose, this is the HTML structure that is emitted by the MediaWiki software when we use colons to indent lines. When colon-indented lines are contiguous, only one <dl>...</dl> element is output; but when blank lines are interspersed between colon-indented lines, multiple <dl>...</dl> elements are output. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Quiet edits

I was asked by a user regarding this edit what I meant by a "quiet edit". IMO, two basic rules when editing other editors talk-page comments are (1) We are here to build an encyclopedia. (2) Don't change the meaning. If an edit is removed from a talk page without adding a comment, this changes the meaning. The addition of a comment alerts readers to look in the edit history to learn more. The absence of such a comment is what I mean by a "quiet edit". Likewise, the edit was restored quietly. Unscintillating (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:TALKCENT: "Before implementing a centralized talk page, you must first propose and gain consensus."

Is the "Before implementing a centralized talk page, you must first propose and gain consensus." line referring to something different than what Wikipedia:Centralized discussion is referring to? After the topic of centralizing a discussion was mentioned in this discussion, I came to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to see what it states about it, if this is the page I originally read guideline material about centralizing discussions. The "propose and gain consensus" aspect of WP:TALKCENT seems odd to me; we don't usually have to get consensus to centralize a discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Pigsonthewing. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right, it's talking about a different thing entirely. It's talking about a perpetual centralized talk for a set of pages, not about community-wide advertising of a transient centralized discussion. I'll see if I can fix this. Gigs (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I just changed the "see also" to "not to be confused with". That should do it. Gigs (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines versus reference page ones

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have raised the problem about talk page guidelines versus reference desk ones at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Claim_that_talk_page_guidelines_override_reference_desk_ones. Dmcq (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to add the following to TPOC

Other namespaces: Additional reasons may be specified in the guidelines for any page where users directly interact outside the user and article namespaces (e.g., the WP:Reference desk).

but Guy Macon reverted saying "Major change in policy in the middle of a discussion about whether to change the policy"

(A) This is not a policy, but a behavioral guideline

(B) It isn't a "major change", since it doesn't actually do anything other than a bit of housekeeping that sidesteps the difficult taxonomic question whether direct communication pages outside the user & article namespaces are/aren't "talk pages" and it shunts debate over unique procedures needed for such pages (at lease according to some eds) to those pages instead of cluttering everything for everyone here.

(C) Would have resolved the alleged POLCON problem cited by Guy at the Village Pump.

IN SUM I am unclear as to the substantive basis for this revert, other than Guy did not like it. Guy? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As a gesture of good will, I self-reverted while we discuss this.

As I understand the addition, and this relates to NewsAndEventsGuy's comment above ("and it shunts debate over unique procedures needed for such pages (at lease according to some eds) to those pages instead of cluttering everything for everyone here"), it changes this policy so that it allows local consensus to override WP:TPOC. Right now our policy is that W:TPOC lists what you can remove/edit, and per WP:LOCALCON, local consensus cannot decide that it is OK to delete comments for any reason not listed at TPOC. The additional wording not only allows the deletion/editing of non-harmful good-faith questions on the reference desks, but it allows the local consensus to decide that it is OK to delete anything written by an IP editor, or to delete anything that someone disagrees with. This is a major change from existing policy, which is that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", and it causes WP:TPG to directly contradict WP:LOCALCON. That looks like a major change in policy to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(Sound of Crickets) Looks like WP:BRD was the right idea after all. No discussion, so I am going to remove it again as being an undiscussed major change of a guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So basically you are removing it as no-one except you complained when it was put in? Well by my reckoning Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Claim_that_talk_page_guidelines_override_reference_desk_ones approves the change and it is a valid location for debates about policies and guidelines - especially if there is a conflict like this, however if you dispute my reading of the situation I'm sure a proper RfC and a note at centralized discussions etc can be set up. Dmcq (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact as far as I can see there is good grounds from that discussion for saying that the reference desk pages are not talk pages as covered by this guideline, just that they have their own guideline which defers to this one in most matters. I think though we should wait and see if there are more contributions at VPP first though about that. Dmcq (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You made a Bold edit. I Reverted it. I started Discussing it, but made the tactical error of self-Reverting and allowing your edit to stand while we discussed the matter.

Then you spent three days not responding.

So, realizing that you wouldn't discuss this unless you were reverted, I undid my self-revert. Lo and behold, three hours later here you are discussing it. Looks like I made the right call, doesn't it?

Alas, you also decided that WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT don't apply to you and instead went for the popular (but wrong) BRRD.

That's a bit disappointing from someone who has been around as long as you have and who should know better.

Finally, discussion somewhere else does not justify a refusal to discuss on the talk page of the page you edited.

You are certainly free to summarize and refer to that other discussion, but anyone who is interested in the content of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines will look for any WP:BRD discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, and should not be required to monitor some other page.

So, are you going to do the right thing (WP:TALKDONTREVERT, WP:BRD), or are you going to stick with your decision to do the wrong thing (BRRD)? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy put in the original edit, you reverted it, I put it in again. The discussion is on the village pump on policy because a conflict between two guidelines is being discussed and as it says "The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines." Dmcq (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have my answer to the question "are you going to do the right thing (WP:TALKDONTREVERT, WP:BRD), or are you going to stick with your decision to do the wrong thing (BRRD)?" You are clearly committed to your present path of doing the wrong thing (BRRD). Note that WP:BRD does not make an exception when The B and the second R are made by different editors. Its is still BRRD instead of BRD and it is still wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed change; a small discussion at VPP is insufficient to call "consensus." (A policy rfc on this page would be, of course). NE Ent 20:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at the discussion. It is not a small discussion and the consensus is pretty clear that the reference desk is not to be considered a talk page. VPP is an appropriate page not here for such a discussion because the issue straddles two guidelines. If anything the statement should be stronger. Anyway you should give a better reason than that you think it hasn't been discussed enough yet, why do you think an RfC is needed given what is said there? Dmcq (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Poll

Consensus is against this change. Number 5 7 11:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the statement:

Other namespaces: Additional reasons may be specified in the guidelines for any page where users directly interact outside the user and article namespaces (e.g., the WP:Reference desk).

be included in talk page guidelines? (See discussion above)

BACKGROUND: At the reference desk, question askers sometimes ask for legal, medical, or other forms of professional advice. Providing such advice might legally require a professional license and might expose the advice-givers to liability. What's really at issue here is whether such questions should (A) just be deleted, or (B) handled in some other way that leaves them visible but without providing the solicited advice.

One camp claims these talk page guidelines apply to RefDesk with controlling authority, and that the section about messing with others' comments does not allow such questions to be deleted outright. That camp views this proposed addition as changing how these guidelines work, because they think the proposal would free the RefDesk from what they say are controlling guidelines.
The other camp thinks the RefDesk is not a "talk page" and although the RefDesk has embraced most of the talk page guideline even though the RefDesk is not a talk page, this camp thinks the RefDesk is already free to adopt additional rules as needed for that unique area. This camp views the proposed addition as adding clarity to the talk page guidelines, without changing anything about their applicability to the RefDesk. According to this camp, the proposal is merely a crystal clear expression of how these guidelines and the RefDesk already work.
Partisans to the dispute have my permission to edit this summary if I got part wrong, but please refrain unless I really screwed up big time.)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Essentially correct but the reference desk guidelines actually talk about hatting or removing and replacing with a comment, not deleting without any sign so doing that would be against either guideline. The principle though is whether it can set up guidelines for its own best practice. Dmcq (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As a side comment, anything about exposing advice-givers to liability (as mentioned by NewsAndEventsGuy) has been discussed before, and the reason for not giving medical or legal advice has nothing to do with liability. It is because Wikipedia must strive not to do any harm. Amateurish advice presented as a professional opinion could cause harm. The liability is a moot point if no one could realistically be caught anyway. IBE (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

~~Support~~ No longer support The argument about whether the talk page guideline overrides the reference desk one has evaporated with agreement to work on fixing the reference desk ones rather than arguments that this guideline automatically override them. In that case I think this change is to an extent instruction creep. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The previous comments by me were

The discussion is at WP:VPP#Claim that talk page guidelines override reference desk ones not above. The village pump on policy has a mandate to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines and this issue straddles two guidelines. It was notified on the talk page of both. At that discussion Proposal A which had a number of sections section B of which was this proposal. There was two supports and one against section B. Proposal B was to say that the reference desk was a talk page and this had 4 disagrees and no supports. The names for the proposals were disjoint. That gives 6 saying the reference desk is just different or that this sentence should be here and one against who says the reference desk guidelines are overridden by these guidelines. You can look there for some comments by a couple of others who didn't specifically say support or disagree.

I believe if anything the sentence at the start of this policy "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply" may need revising to stop this trouble. I believe it is a reasonable statement but that the pushing of this as meaning the reference desk guidelines can be overridden where it gives specific advice about the reference desks is wrong. It is not justified by WP:LOCALCON which says guidelines have wide support or WP:POLCON which simply says that conflicts may need to be resolved to reflect actual practice. The concept of precedence only applies to policies compared to guidelines. However this issue has been based on those grounds so a clear statement may be needed to indicate in this instance that there is no automatic overriding. Dmcq (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Support because this text is just an on-point explicit and clear statement of how things work if we just apply existing text. (A) The RefDesk is simply not a talk page. At Help:Using_talk_pages there is a box that lists the talk pages of the various namespaces. I've seen references that the RefDesk is part of the Help namespace, but right now it appears as part of the Wikipedia name space. Either way, it is not part of either Help_talk or Wikipedia_talk and these guidelines are not entirely controlling for that reason. (B) In addition, the talk page guidelines explicitly say

"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." (Bold added)

It does not say "absolutely-positively-in-all-circumstances-no-matter-what apply". Just "usually" apply. Some whom I presume will be in the "opposed" camp want us to read the talk page guidelines as a powerful authority, and give them full force and effect. Well...... ok by me! That happens to include the phrase "usually apply", unless there is consensus to change that phrase. "Usually apply" means there are times when they won't and don't apply, for example to "pages in other namespaces [that] are used for discussion and communication between users", such as the RefDesk. (C) The RefDesk Guidelines have had a protocol for replacing medical-advice solicitations with a template since 2007. (D) Methinks editors who deal with the RefDesk are the ones best suited for reviewing their 2007 protocol and revising if something would better suit their needs over there. (E) IN SUM the proposal makes no change whatsoever, just turns an existing protocol from something that was implied to something explicit. SUPPORT.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

~~Support~~ No longer support I have already commented at the other active discussion of this topic, WP:VPP#Claim that talk page guidelines override reference desk ones, that the Reference Desk is very different from other Wikipedia pages and needs to have its own guideline based on a consensus developed there. I won't repeat my reasoning here. While I generally oppose instruction creep, I feel that an addition is needed to end this "my guideline trumps your guideline" argument over the reference desk. The Talk page guidelines are not the right place to manage the reference desk and adding a sentence to clarify that is the best way for us to move on.--agr (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Per Dmcq, no longer needed.--agr (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Unnecessary policy creep to deal with a transient problem caused by one editor at a single location (Reference Desk). Less is more NE Ent 23:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Agree that this is policy creep. Even if it isn't this is going in the wrong direction. Do we let the local consensus to decide that it is OK to delete anything you disagree with? As written, this addition allows that. WP:TPOC and WP:LOCALCON form an important barrier against a local consensus violating the consensus of the wider community. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Changing my !vote to Neutral. Whichever way the consensus goes is fine by me. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I think it's unnecessary to address the problem this way. What matters is the hatting and removal of content on the refdesk and when that is or is not appropriate. [It seems to me] that the talk page guidelines have only been invoked (with precedent and good reason) as a remedy to problems with the refdesk guidelines in regard to content removal and hatting. The priority should be on fixing the ref desk guidelines (hence Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Proposal to modify refdesk guidelines on matters of removing and.2For hatting controversial questions), at which point I don't think it makes sense to have the talk page guidelines take jurisdiction. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose to avoid instruction creep, but talk page guidelines can have exceptions. Also per Rhododendrites. —PC-XT+ 06:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Can we leave our comments in the appropriate section to make it easier for the eventual closer? NE Ent 01:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment [Reply to Rhododendrites]

As the original author of the proposed addition, I'm confused as to why you are not in support? I mean, I wrote the original proposal because I don't think talk page guidelines have or should have controlling jurisdiction of the RefDesk (unless a RefDesk section were added that is). So why aren't you in support and then advocatig for the fixes to the RefDesk guidelines over there?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: - The text in question more explicitly clarifies talk page guidelines' jurisdiction over the refdesk guidelines by making explicit that "additional reasons may be specified." So, as I see it, while it says the talk page guidelines do apply, it effectively adds "but don't let that stop you from removing or altering other people's comments if that's what you do on the reference desk." I don't find that productive. So in other words while I understand this grants flexibility to the refdesk, it maintains the domain of the talk page guidelines while neutralizing the very part of them that deals with the problems at hand (which is to say, tempering the currently too loose refdesk guidelines on content removal/hatting). If the refdesk guidelines were improved, this addition wouldn't be so consequential, of course. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I understand, precisely, but feel we are way down the hypertechnical rabbit hole. I may come back to this later, but for now would like to thank you for the explanation and apologize that it's not going "in" (yet, anyway). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal: Not Creep In my "support" !vote, I explained that this change takes an existing protocol based on existing text, but writes something concise and onpoint so that it is clear and explicit. Pursuant to WP:CREEP "All instruction should be as clear as possible". Thus, adding a pithy statement of how things already work, based on existing guidelines/policy, is not "creep". (Of course, if you can demonstrate that the RefDesk is a "talk page", then I'm wrong.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment [Reply to NE Ent]]

Perhaps you could say what problem you are talking about thanks and how it is transient. Dmcq (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment I don't understand and still don't understand why there's suddenly this big fuss (unless people are annoyed at one editor but rather than doing something about it are fussing over other stuff) and I've found it incredibly boring hence why I didn't comment until now. But I feel I should point out there seems to be a mistaken belief TPOC currently implies you can't close or remove medical or legal advice from RD if we intepret the TPOC as applying there.

This isn't correct as TPOC allows off topic posts to be closed or even removed although urges caution. This follows practice on article talk pages and noticeboards like ANI where offtopic posts are closed or occasionally removed depending on the post, how bad a problem offtopic posts are in that specific talk page, etc.

One difference is that we generally delete rather than close such discussions primarily because history suggests someone will still try to respond. (Although in some article talk pages where it's a big problem off topic posts are routinely deleted and as I said TPOC doesn't actually forbid removal even if it suggests closure.) The other main difference is that it's usually only happens in clearer cut cases whereas medical and legal advice questions are often disputed.

(The nature of what's offtopic and what's on topic is of course somewhat more confusing on the RD than in normal talk pages although some noticeboards may have similar issues. And besides medical and legal advice, we are generally fairly tolerant of stuff which seems offtopic with one editor who is an exception. )

But anyway, all this means that if medical and legal advice questions are offtopic on the RD then the TPOC doesn't actually prevent their removal as some seem to think.

None of this means we shouldn't clarify if people really feel it's necessary but I think people are reading TPOC to be more presciptive than it actually is if they think that it prevents these sort of resonable norms on what's acceptable and what isn't on talk page like boards.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point, i.e., that professional-advice solicitations are "off point" at a venue where such advice is probably against the law. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion for the comment below will illustrate the problem for you. You can have a person doing something on the reference desks which is wrong according to both guidelines but that original point gets obscured by an argument on what should be done with this guideline being quoted even on medical and legal matters which it doesn't mention. Dmcq (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Though I am a support I have sympathy for the instruction creep argument and this change only had a small support at VPP. However you can see the WP:LOCALCON argument being advanced above as a reason for one of the opposes despite there being a strong consensus at VPP that the reference desks are not talk pages and can set up their own advice. When this RfC is closed I would like a clear statement on that point please or I fear this point will disrupt further discussions. Dmcq (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The "strong consensus at VPP that the reference desks are not talk pages and can set up their own advice" does not actually exist. Dmcq wants it to exist, but the straw poll he is referring to asked another, unrelated question. Alas, Dmcq keeps making comments like the one above, acting as if his interpretation is an established fact.

The problem with taking a straw poll or RfC asking one question and trying to use it to answer another is one of self-selection. Let me illustrate with an example. Suppose you ran a straw poll with the question "which is better; an iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy S series?" In the discussion, one person claims that the iPhone is more fragile, another claims that the Galaxy is more fragile, and the vast majority (over 90%) say that fragility is rather unimportant and that the usefulness of the smartphone is far more important. Could Dmcq use that to claim that "there is a strong consensus at the smartphone RfC that mobile phone usefulness is more important than ruggedness"? Please think about it for a moment and draw a conclusion before you read on.

What if there were ten Wikipedia users who use the Casio G'zOne Commando and a hundred who use the Casio G'zOne Boulder for every one that uses the iPhone or Samsung Galaxy? They wouldn't comment on an Iphone/Galaxy RfC, and indeed probably wouldn't have the page where the RfC was posted on their watchlists, but if you ran an RfC asking the specific question "which is more important; mobile phone usefulness or ruggedness" you could very well get a completely different answer because now the Casio users would reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So something you disagree with at VPP is just a straw poll you can dismiss unless it is an RfC. So be it, you've got an RfC. The proposal that was dismissed outright at VPP was 'Proposal B Declare Ref Desk to be a rootin' tootin' talk page'. which is basically what Guy Macon is advocating. The discussion was at WP:VPP because that is where WP:Centralized discussion says is a good place for them and this affects the reference desk guideline as well and notices were placed on the talk page of both guidelines. I've already posted a note to the reference desk guidelines talk page about this RfC and I'll place a notice at VPP that the discussion has now moved to here.

This is the problem I have with this RfC. Guy Macon is as far as I can see here laying the ground for dismissing this RfC as having any relevance to the question of whether or not this guideline overrides the reference desk guideline which is the basis for the trouble. Dmcq (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

First, you have completely mischaracterized "what Guy Macon is advocating". I am not advocating what you think I am. This is, presumably, because your bias (not an insult, we all have biases, especially me) is coloring what you read into things. If you had asked me "are the reference desks talk pages?" I would have told you "of course not. They are pages in another namespace that are used for discussion and communication between users, as described in WP:TPOC".

But we are not disputing whether reference desks are talk pages. If that was your only claim I would have agreed at once. Your actual claim, as per your words above, is that "there [is] a strong consensus at VPP that the reference desks are not talk pages and can set up their own advice" (emphasis added). There is no such consensus.

As to your claim that "Guy Macon is as far as I can see here laying the ground for dismissing this RfC as having any relevance to the question of whether or not this guideline overrides the reference desk guideline", I flatly deny it and ask you to please WP:AGF. First, I always go along with consensus as demonstrated in an RfC or any other poll that has an uninvolved closer. Specifically, I go along with what the uninvolved closer say is the consensus, not on my interpretation or your interpretation of the results. Second, if I did think that there was a flaw with this RfC, I would have said so at once so you could fix it.

Would you do me a favor? would you please indicate that you agree that this RfC asks the specific question

"Should the statement: 'Other namespaces: Additional reasons may be specified in the guidelines for any page where users directly interact outside the user and article namespaces (e.g., the WP:Reference desk).' be included in talk page guidelines?"

and that you agree to not reinterpret the result as being the answer to some other question? Unless, of course, the closing admin says in his closing comments that there is or is not a consensus for something else. You are free to ask him to do that, BTW. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is the question, also I did ask for the closer to make a decision if they could on whether the talk page guidelines take precedence over the reference desk ones. The poll on whether the reference desk was a talk page was made in the context of this problem of which took precedence even if that was not explicitly written in the precise question. What is required to make a decision that you would accept and abide by on whether you are right that this guideline takes precedence over the reference desk one or whether you are wrong and should give up your LOCALCON argument? Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If either one of us thinks that the closing admin didn't answer the question of what happens when the talk page guidelines forbids something and the reference desk guidelines allow it, I will ask him to clarify. I am fully committed to follow the consensus from this RfC, and I have absolute confidence that you are as well. Both of us want to do what is best for the encyclopedia and both of us have been around long enough to know when to drop the stick, accept that consensus went against us, and continue working together with no hard feelings. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ya'll keep referencing "the RFC" and the "Closing admin" and I'd like to go look that up, but I'm not 100% sure what thread you are talking about. Would one of you please provide a link? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not exactly sure what they're saying either. 15:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's the one with {{rfc|policy|rfcid=0AB79B9}} at the top. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Or more directly, Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#rfc_0AB79B9. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explicitly stating when TP comments may be ignored

This thread relates to my bold addition of Ignoring Comments

Recently I ran across a new IP who made a determined effort to ignore TPG formatting standards. In the interests of full disclosure, there might be a current dispute with this IP (who is now blocked for other forms of disruption), but that's besides the point. I still think this is a good idea.

After I pointed out a few things they still made a determined effort to post badly formatted walls of text. In my view, whatever the wallsoftext might say, if a user insists on not following TPG formatting standards, after being specifically notified, then they are not really here to collaborate to improve things. In other words, that is a mild form of disruption and such comments - whatever they say - do not count for consensus and may be ignored. Users who can't or won't bother to learn about indenting and signatures are probably WP:NOTHERE to collaborate in a meaingful way, so others are justified in ignoring them.

Comments? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. It is up to users to try and follow standards to help in communication. It is not up to everyone else to try and cope with the eccentricities of any eccentric that comes along just in case they may have a point. As part of being welcoming we should initially try but in my experience people who can't quickly learn to communicate have never had anything worthwhile to say anyway and reading what they say is a waste of time. Users are not required to waste their time. Dmcq (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding external links to talk pages

NAC: Consensus is against Ark25. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have recently added 5 external links at Talk:Human tooth#Human tooth regrowth with some information that I find interesting about the possible future of better ways of replacing lost teeth. The information includes reports of successful laboratory experiments. I think my action respected this guide, which states There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation. My point is to notice the other editors (and to help myself for not forgetting about such information), so that later, someone (it can be me) can find some interesting information to add to the Wikipedia article, based on/starting from the references I provided. If there would have been 10 such external links instead of 5, then it would have probably been the same thing.

If I would do such actions on 100 talk pages, my actions can very well go unnoticed. If I would do that in 1.000 talk pages, it would most certainly raise some eyebrows.

But what if I would do that in 10.000 pages? Or 30.000 ? Or 100.000? Occasionally (when I have the time), I am using such links posted in talk pages (by me or by others), in order to add information in the Wikipedia articles. I know that it's better to directly add the information into the Wikipedia articles. But that is more time consuming. Say that each day I find 200 references with valuable information. Instead of trying to make use of them as references in the articles and using only 20 of them (because I simply don't have the time to do more than that), I prefer to add all those 200 links into the appropriate talk pages (about 200 distinct talk pages), in the hope that someone else will make use of them, or that I will make use them, later or at least when I will retire :)

Sometimes I find so much (relevant and verifiable and from reliable sources) information (in national newspaper sites) about corrupt (Romanian) politicians every day that I simply can't add all of it into the Wikipedia articles about those politicians. Therefore I have a problem. There is too much information for me to process every day. What I can't process today, I won't be able to process tomorrow. By the contrary: what I can't process today will just pile on the yesterday's unused information. In time (years), such information is lost, since it won't be available online anymore (there are national papers that delete their archive of articles instead of keeping them) and searching for all of it on printed paper would be an impossible task.

It's simply unfair to ask me to add all that information in the Wikipedia articles every day, since that's absolutely impossible for a single person to do. Other editors are simply not interested to make use of such references. Therefore I find myself alone in trying to do the task. In front of such a dilemma, I choose to add the links to the talk pages, many times providing a short description of the newspaper article's content. With the risk of being called a spammer and being accused to break the WP:NOT#LINK policy, I see no other choice for me than to try to make use of all that information, in the way I can. Examples of such edits of talk pages: Talk:Ghervazen Longher#Controversies and Talk:Romeo Stavarache#Controversies

I am 100% dedicated for improving Wikipedia and I don't represent any third party. I only represent myself and my desire to make notable and verifiable and relevant information available on Wikipedia, as much as I can.

Please don't tell me there is life outside Wikipedia because there is no such thing! :)

I think that on Wikipedia we can apply the concept of division of work. If some people only have the time to suggest adding something good into Wikipedia articles, then they should be allowed to do that, if those suggestions generally prove to be valuable.

I am doing such actions in good faith. I am not trying to fill the talk pages with spam. I am just trying to notice something that is valuable to add in the articles. Of course, sometimes I fail, adding links that have outdated information or simply not usable information. But I'm not perfect.

Some can say that I am using the talk pages as drafts. Not as my personal drafts, but as common drafts.

I have used talk pages for making such drafts before, gathering some useful statistics: Talk:Webcam#Sales # Talk:Digital camera/Archive 1#Sales # Talk:Camera phone#Sales # Talk:Television set#Sales # Talk:E-book reader#Sales # Talk:AMOLED#Sales # Talk:Watch#Sales # Talk:E-book#Sales # Talk:Kickstarter#Statistics. Those statistics will serve to develop/improve the „Sales” sections of the respective Wikipedia articles. Those are not examples of posting external links, but they are good examples of me making suggestions and making drafts (noticing and preparing data for use in the WP articles) on talk pages.

What would you think about my actions?

This hasn't happened on English Wikipedia. But it can happen. Imagine I already did such things. What would you say about that?

Thanks. — Ark25 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Just say "no" to external link spam. It's easy to keep your personal notes off wiki, and work on one article at a time. Some eds use their sandbox for temporary drafts.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I dont' believe that's spam. Those are (potential) future references, as I could prove many times, by later using them into the articles. As I said, each day there is more information than what I can possibly process. It doesn't help me to store the links on my own disk or personal notes because, instead of being able to later use it, it will only pile up into a larger and larger collection that I will never make use of. Why to keep them just for me, since they can show to the other editors that there is useful information to add into the WP articles? After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Not just a collaborative effort of egoistic additions to articles, where we „collaborate” by just allowing each other what to add and what not to add into the WP articles. Collaboration for building better articles has a broader sense: we can have various kind of collective drafts, like for example the pages in the Portal and Project namespaces. To a certain extent, we should be able to use the talk pages as drafts. If those drafts become too large, then they should probably be moved into the Wikipedia portals where they belong. Or to some other kind of (collective) draft pages - like for example resources pages. In my view, spam is mainly a voluntary effort to promote the interests of a person or a company, or (accidentally) an effort that involuntarily promotes such interests. But reasonable posting (in good faith) external links from a broad number of sources just for drafting purposes doesn't fall in any of those categories. The links I gather are spam just as much as the references used in the Wikipedia articles are spam. In case the links I posted involuntarily promote some interests, the references used in the WP articles also involuntarily promote the same interests.— Ark25 (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You said, "It doesn't help me to store the links on my own disk or personal notes because, instead of being able to later use it, it will only pile up into a larger and larger collection that I will never make use of. Why keep them just for me...." Can I store my moldy couch in your living room? I already have more furniture than I could possibly use, but who knows? Someone might want to use it at your place, someday. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is your moldy couch providing additional information for adding into the article? Does it follow the guide that says There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation. The links I was adding are suggesting to add some particular information in the article. My living room is not a space for collective gatherings. I rephrased my first answer now, I should have said I don't believe that it's .. instead of It's not ... Because I haven't come here to tell you how things work. I came here to ask for opinions. — Ark25 (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

OK... My opinion is that adding links to talk pages when you have no intention of working them into articles stinks like external link spam, and is a form of disruption. I see from your talk page you've invented a script to rapidly convert article entries to cite format. No wonder you are buried in (useless) sources that you never plan to edit into articles. Keep 'em in your own living room, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but it's not true that I have no intention of working them into articles. I do want to make use them into articles but for the moment (and for a while from now on) I don't have the time to use them. Sometimes I came back and I added them into WP articles as useful references. Some other times, other editors used them in articles in order to add more information. I stick to my view that, being a collective effort, people are allowed to only make useful suggestions, if that's the way they can contribute. Useful suggestions can be in the form of useful links. Others will later use those suggestions. The sources I found are not always the best sources on the respective topics, but they contain useful information and that prompts further investigation - i.e. - make use of the information and find better sources if possible. My actions is in form of suggesting the addition of certain useful information into articles, noticing the links that contain that useful information. I can't use all those links by myself because I don't have the time, but that doesn't make the links useless. Yes, I created a wonderful script that helps editors to create references in a single click. It's a pain to waste more than 1 second for generating a reference. Those things should be done automatically. I presented it at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_5#Script that generates references in one click. Those who tried it found it awesome. And they are not spammers, they are just regular editors. — Ark25 (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) Oh, you're saying your remark above in green wasn't true?

(B) You'd have more time to work just one of the sources into articles if you don't waste it by posting raw links and moving on - or by posting a gazillion words defending your desire to do so.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) You mean the green remark is contradicting with my other statement: Sometimes I came back and I added them into WP articles as useful references.? Well, if that's what you mean, then, yes, sometimes I do find the time to add such information into articles. The daily stream of information is not constant. For example, today I can find only 100 useful links instead of 200. That gives me the time to go back to some talk pages where I posted something very interesting and to make use of that information in the respective article. But that applies to only a small part of those links. But in no way I can make use of all of them into WP articles. If there would be more people like me, interested to make use of the information about corrupt Romanian politicians, then we'll be able to directly make use of all of those links into WP articles. But we are too few at the moment.

(B) In this case, instead of processing 200 links per day, I can only process 20 links per day, because adding information into articles is much more time consuming. I only have a limited number of hours available each day for editing Wikipedia. The rest of 180 links will be ignored, and in time, many of them go offline and the information they presented will be practically completely lost. After a while, we will not even know that such information existed. Romanian newspapers don't care that much about keeping their archives.

There are many WP articles about Romanian deputies and senators and other politicians that look like the Ghervazen Longher article (a stub with a single line) and they have empty talk pages. Many of them won't be developed much if at all and they will look the same after 10, 20 or 30 years. There are very few news about them. So, after 10 years, instead of having the same stub and an empty talk page, it's better to something into the talk page, instead of having nothing. Sorry for using another gazillion words. I know that the case I make is highly unusual. But it has a valid and practical point. — Ark25 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No, posting multiple links anywhere in Wikipedia is spam which will be removed. I just reverted the link at Talk:Ghervazen Longher which had "He was sent to court on two counts of conflict of interest" with a handy external link. WP:BLP (and common decency) applies on all pages—if the material is not suitable for the article, it is not suitable for any page. The links on Talk:Human tooth#Human tooth regrowth may be acceptable as a one-off, but please find something else to do because there are already enough people trying to add links to Wikipedia. Google can be used to find lots of suitable pages if an editor wants to add something to the article, and it is unlikely that anyone capable of adding good material would even notice the section with the links on the talk. Johnuniq (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I have translated it wrong. He was investigated and sued by prosecutors. I don't understand how that can violate WP:BLP. It is suitable for the article. For example the Cătălin Voicu article says „He was later arrested and investigated for corruption and trafficking in influence”. It's basically the same thing. He was not convicted but he was investigated. If other people would try to add external links to Wikipedia, then they should be judged individually, based on the nature of their actions and based on their particular intentions. Google can't find information that is not available anymore. Romanian newspapers sometimes delete their archives. Evenimentul zilei just did that a couple of months ago. Articles older than 2006 were wiped out. A lot of information is lost and can't be found online anymore. It's not true that the other editors would not even notice the section with the links. That happened before - they noticed it and they used it in the articles. There are lots of talk pages which are virtually empty, and especially on those pages it's not hard at all to notice the links. — Ark25 (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"Google can't find information that is not available anymore." If the links you provide no longer lead to information by the time someone interested in improving the article comes across them, then they'll be useless anyway. An editor can't cite them if he doesn't know what they said when they existed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I provide a short description of the information contained in the link. Even without that, the title of the link will suggest what you have to look for (you might find the same information on other sources - online or not). At least, the link will tell you in which issue of the printed edition you have to look in order to find that information (I always write down the publication date). So, the link is far from useless. By the contrary, it wil notice the WP editors that some useful information exist. Without the link I posted, they won't even know that such information ever existed, because they can't find it online. On top of that, fortunately, Archive.is is still doing an awesome job for us, archiving any external link (reference or not) posted in WP articles or in talk pages of articles. For example this link (from Talk:Romeo Stavarache):

Primarul Bacăului, Romeo Stavarache, judecat într-un dosar legat de repartizarea unei locuinţe, 3 aprilie 2014, Departamentul Social -Mediafax, Gândul

is archived at http://archive.today/http://www.gandul.info/stiri/primarul-bacaului-romeo-stavarache-trimis-in-judecata-12394765 (on Romanian Wikipedia we have an awesome gadget that after each external link, it posts it's backup links on Archive.is and Archive.org. Before you ask: no, that awesome gadget is not made by me)

Not sure how long they will do such a favor to us, but at least for the moment it works.

I really much hope that Wikipedia will have it's own such archiving server (and I expressed my hope here), because that's really necessary in order to counter the Link rot problem. You can read more about this at User_talk:Lexein/Archive_19#Archive.is and Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. In short, Archive.is is accused of spam, even though it's doing a wonderful job for Wikipedia. — Ark25 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, noticing many such cases of information being lost before we can make use of it prompted me to invent a new philosophy named meta:Archivism, which is a complementary approach to meta:Inclusionism. — Ark25 (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned this discussion at WP:BLPN#Material on talk page of a BLP and WP:ELN#External links on article talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE. IP's and new editors add external links to talk pages all the time, asking for material in the target to be incorporated in the article. Nothing wrong with that. I've also seen a list of potential sources appear in a header box on talk pages. Again, could be useful. However this practice can be abused. In a specific case, an IP was continually finding links to negative reports (all reliable sources) on a BLP and adding them to a section on the talk page, claiming they could be "useful". It resulted in a nice little attack section. If the links are of high quality, possess new info, and are added out of a genuine desire to help others expand the article I say leave them in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I just wish you can stick to your opinion after me adding 10-15 external links into 100.000 talk pages :D. On Romanian Wikipedia most of my former supporters are blaming me now (I have touched about 10.000 pages there). Now they are scratching their heads trying to find a way to stop me :D. — Ark25 (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a simple approach to stop you here, at least temporarily. Per WP:BEANS, I'm not going to mention it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you check the WP:ANI archives, you will see that a floating IP was blocked (aka banned) for doing just that (adding raw URLs or citations to talk pages, without indicating probable use), among other things. In other words, there is a WP:CONSENSUS that what you are saying you will do is wrong. Enforcement will be left to another post, but we do have some AdminBots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See also {{uw-botblock}}; we have a template to report what you are saying you will do as a reason to block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your story about the case in the WP:ANI archives scared me very much. I was scared even more by your mysterious claim involving the story about the beans. In order to avoid being blocked for providing links without indicating probable use, I will indicate probable use from now on. Like for example the way I did at Talk:Romeo Stavarache.

Speaking about uw-botblock: I really can't imagine a way to design a bot capable to find useful information in newspapers and then to detect on which Wikipedia articles such information would be useful, and then to check if the information was already used in the article or not, and then to automatically add the information into WP article's talk pages. But hey! I already made a sleek Bookmarklet, I'm sure that sooner or later I'll figure out how to make such a program containing a lot of Artificial Intelligence (you know that spammers are geniuses, right?), and then I'll happily help you out into proving that I'm a spammer. After all, what's life without a little bit of collaboration and cooperation? — Ark25 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ark25 - I don't understand why you are going on at such length. Much of your posting is too long to read. However, you appear to be asking to what extent you can push the limits of the rule against external link spamming. Don't ask that question. If we told you that link spamming 20 articles will get you blocked, would you use that as an excuse to link spam 19 articles and then wikilawyer your defense? What are you trying to ask or say? If it is to what extent link spamming is permitted, don't ask that question. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

He's already articulated a rationalization for what he's trying to do. He wants to know to what extent can he add ext links to article talk in the interest of somehow someday someone maybe using 'em to somewhat improve the articles he doesn't have time to work on? Don't ask him to repeat somemore! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think that the spam is an attempt to promote someone's interests. I only have a genuine desire to help others expand the articles. So the links I posted can't be spam. Therefore I was asking for opinions about posting useful external links, not about rules against spam. If they are too many of too low quality then they are probably an abuse but still not spam. If the limit would be 20 then I would post 19 (not as an excuse but as respecting the rule, because I don't have bad intentions) and I will defend my point and I am entitled to do that because I know my desire to help article development is genuine. Sorry if my messages are too long, really, but I just wanted to explain my actions the best way that I could, making sure I'm not missing something important in the point I want to make. — Ark25 (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:LINKFARM, in addition, what you're talking about is definitely spam per and your promotional goal is with respect to your own right to create a WP:LINKFARM of external link WP:SPAM instead of doing the actual work of using the sources for article improvement. Since your stated goal is something other than directly improving the articles, WP:NOTHERE applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So I'll have to say somemore:

WP:LINKFARM doesn't apply to articles: excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia - such links have not much to dwarf in the talk pages
WP:SPAM doesn't apply here since I'm not promoting anyone's interest, not even involuntarily.
WP:NOTHERE doesn't apply since those links are proven to be useful for being used in the WP articles, sometimes other editors were using them thanks to the fact that I added them in the talk pages and some other times I used them myself as references in the articles. And sometimes I posted links into talk pages and those links are dead links now (e.g. Talk:Domestic_pig#Attacks_on_humans), so my action is good for making sure the information is not lost forever: meta:Archivism: Many times such information can also be found in the printed edition of the newspapers, but searching into printed archives is so much time consuming, that, except for extremely important data, nobody will have the time to search for it. Therefore we can safely say that, most of the time, once the information doesn't exist online anymore, it is lost forever.

About your previous comment: someone will maybe use the links.. - if no one will use the links in the next 500 years, it's still better to have them than not to have them. Imagine that Ghervazen Longher article will stay that way (1 line stub) for the next 20 years. In this case, when you check the article again in 20 years, what you prefer: an empty talk page or a talk page with some useful external links? — Ark25 (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

An empty talk page, of course. If it is still worth covering at that time sources will be readily findable. If sources are not readily findable then it should be deleted. So of course, an empty talk page is better than a LINKFARM posted by someone NOTHERE to do actual article improvement work. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I find the term „readily findable” a bit fuzzy. You mean available online? Available in printed edition? Available in form of statements in history books?

If it's worth covering the information today, then it's worth covering it after 50 or 500 years too. This aspect doesn't change in time. There is no If it is still worth covering. Once it's worth covering, it will always be worth covering.

1. The printed issues of a newspaper might be „readily findable” easier to a historian than to you or to me, but historians would never have the time to cover so many things like Wikipedia does. They won't bother to make biographies to such politicians like Ghervazen Longher, because they focus on presidents, prime ministers, ministers, etc. At least that's how it works in my country. Or, in case that the historians will cover them, they will miss some of the aspects of the guy's biography. Those overlooked aspects might be mentioned in the links I posted, therefore the links are coming with something useful.

2. In 50 years (it can be 20, 100, 500 or w/e else), when virtually nobody knows who Ghervazen Longher was anymore, and the links about his legal problems are already offline:

2a. If you find an empty talk page then how can you possibly find out that he was involved into such controversies? I don't believe that you will read all the printed editions of Evenimentul zilei between 2008-2016 for a reason like "maybe I find something relevant about Ghervazen Longher". So, somewhere there is an information worth covering that it's not readily findable and you don't even know it exists. This contradicts your first statement.

2b. If you find a talk page with a dead link then you can search Archive.is (or the future Wikipedia's own such archiving server) for a backup of that link. That Archive.is backup link exists because I added the original link into the talk page and then Archive.is stored it automatically - so if you find it on Google then that's thanks to me. If there is no online backup, then you can search the printed issue of Evenimentul zilei, and you know in which issue you have to look because the (already) dead link I posted tells you the publication date. Therefore, in this case too, the information will be „readily findable” thanks to me posting that external link into the talk page. So, according to your statement, the link should not be deleted, because the information it contained is readily findable (online or offline). — Ark25 (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken autocollapse links

This year, we have seen many broken tab links, even if they are in autocollapse mode. The few of them are the list of all of the "Kiss-FM" formated stations and all of the TV stations in Charleston, I think those autocollapse tabs are broken and should be fixed wikipedia, to add in that help, go to the KIIS-FM link for the Kiss-FM stations, and WCIV for all the Charleston TV stations, I realize that these cannot be fixed by a normal Wiki user, however, it can be fixed by a "Wikipedia EXPERT" only!!! Please help those come back to normal.

I would really thank you if you do fix these tabs, Thank You Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.114.198 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 June 2014

I fixed Template:KISS-FM radio stations and Template:Charleston TV, and it now seems to be ok. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Person making up stories in a page

On Monday, July 6, 2014, someone makes up a story that WZJZ is dead forever and given up by the FCC. Proof of evidence: "On June 21, 2014, a gang of women destroyed the transmitter and murded the crew and it got defunct. The station's license was cancelled and the WZJZ call sign assignment was deleted permanently from the FCC database." I copied and pasted the evidence caused by 70.27.98.190 and because of that, and this is true that I didn't do this and if you see on their revision history, I undid what he or she has done. This is a bad thing for Wikipedia and needs to be stopped, before more broadcasting pages are effected by this person. Check WZJZ's Facebook and Twitter pages on the day marked June 21, 2014 and you will see nothing about it and it still is being updated. I think he is making this up because he did a typo and how could women be that clever to kill a TV station and make the FCC give it up by force. Besides I still hear it where I live in my car radio sometimes at night. I also have never heard from the FCC that they given up a station to criminals, and that this is made up, besides they are still streaming on iHeartRadio. Would someone please consult this to this person: 70.27.98.190. Thank you and let's not make this happen. We don't want people making up stories that TV and radio stations are off the air forever and make people have heart attacks. Maybe some "Wikipedia EXPERTS" could tell him about this.

If you do this, I will thank you Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.114.198 (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You reverted the IP's sole edit, and warned them on their talk page. That's the right way to handle the situation. There's no need for further action.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:REDACT clarification

Support/ opposition to this edit? It's been reverted. Edit and revert have deletion summaries. (In addition, I fixed the last section; the indentation didn't make sense, as its also an instruction, like the others.)--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 18:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The proposed edit changed:

If it becomes necessary to edit your own comments to correct false information or remove (or redact) personal attacks, follow these guidelines:

to:

If it becomes necessary to redact your own comments to correct false information or address personal attacks, follow these guidelines when you strike or remove text:

The problem is that WP:TPG#Own comments (WP:REDACT) includes advice for how to handle simple changes to one's own comments and while the formal definition of "redact" may include that operation, common usage of that word refers to the removal of sensitive text, so "redact" obscurs the meaning.

Another issue is that the edit also put a bullet before the final paragraph "Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments..."—that's not correct as the paragraph is separate from the preceding which refers to editing a comment.

What is the purpose of the proposed change? Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Some regrets

I have been editing en-wikipedia once in a while but could never do a Phd in en-wiki rule books. Some fellow gentelman wikipedian reverted my edit citing some rule over here. I dont have time and energy to go to some dispute resolution forums and mechanisms. I ended up regretting unjust non flexibilty of en wikipedians.

Mahitgar (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The revert was correct in that quite a lot of off-topic commentary is added to article talk pages and if it weren't removed, people would get enthusiastic and leave more and more stuff. Re the issue, you could try WP:HELPDESK, but that's a pretty difficult technical question, and you need someone with special knowledge. Your question is at this permalink. At the bottom-right corner of the video box is a very small icon showing two rectangles. Clicking that shows the file page which is File:Type in Telugu on Telugu Wikimedia projects.webm, and that shows the author is User:Psubhashish. Perhaps ask them. The generic page is Help:Files, and that points to WP:Creation and usage of media files. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mahitgar, Hi. I regret for the removal. But, I would love to help to create a similar video for Marathi if you could help me with the content. Do, let me know here of by mail (subhashish

cis-india.org) about what you would like to have in the video. I missed out the part that explains "how to access the help page". You have rightly pointed it. If you have a shortcut for Marathi do include that as well. I will try to show the link on the video itself. Look forward to hearing from you. Best. --Psubhashish (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you folks please take this discussion some place other than here? It is a good discussion to have, but this is not a good place to have it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The interpretation of the guidelines whose talk page this is, seems an eminently appropriate topic to discuss here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive template request for text search

At some talk pages, there is a text box so eds can search on key words. I realize there is an index on this page's archives, but what if the keyword is not in a thread title? Would someone please add that function to our archive box? I have a love/hate thing going with those particular templates. Thanks for help. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The box here uses an index generated by Legobot (last updated in 2013). There's another box (which name I will look up shortly) which generates a search within subpages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

{{tl{Archive banner}} and {{Search box}} have the relevant search built in. There doesn't seem to be one combined with this {{Archive box collapsable}}. Perhaps more of the features of {{Archive box}} (which does include a search option) could be added to {{Archive box collapsable}}? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy ping, I hope. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Done — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

New guideline: Use Standard Written English ?

There are discussions currently in progress at WT:AN and another forum about systemic gender bias. An analysis indicates that there is also an issue concerning talk page guidelines. The talk-page problem is that some editors use words that are meant to be humorous in their own variety of English but are insulting in another variety of English. It occurs to me that a new guideline is in order, which should be that in non-user talk pages, that is, pages used for collaboration, editors should be encouraged to use Standard Written English, which is understood throughout the English-speaking portions of the world (in spite of orthographic differences). The use of slang in user pages should be discouraged, because it is likely to be misunderstood across Anglophone cultures.

The specific example in point is the word "cunt". It appears that in Australian English, this term is humorous. It may have a different humorous context in British English. In American English, it is deeply offensive to women and degrades them as sexual objects. On the one hand, Australian men should not be expected to know that the word is deeply offensive to American women. On the other hand, American women should certainly not be expected to know that the word is humorous when used by non-Americans, let alone to avoid being offended by it. The wider problem is that talk pages are cross-cultural, and editors should be advised to use the cross-cultural vocabulary of standard written English. Other slang words, having different meanings in different cultures, have also caused misunderstandings. The solution is to treat pages, which are written, as written English, and use standard written English, which is cross-cultural.

I intend to post a Request for Comments to add a subsection to this guideline to strongly encourage the user of standard written English. Does anyone have any further suggestions for what should be included in the RFC?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Applause for right idea. Concern about inadvertently creating unintended ammunition. If we really apply AGF, then I would like to see equal responsibility placed on

people who are offended to assume other party had no clue (in other words to lighten up a bit) as those same people put on
original speaker to get a clue and clean it up

Am interested in reasoning used by any in opposition, since there's probably perspectives I haven't ever thought of. But with what I know now, this seems like a reasonable direction to travel. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your analysis of a bilateral duty on both parties to assume good faith is true in the absence of the proposed guideline. The proposed guideline will change that, and will put the responsibility clearly on the posting party, because standard written English does not have these cross-cultural misunderstandings. I will note that there are a few editors who, more than once, have drawn offense, and this raises the question as to whether they do have a clue and use language that results in cross-cultural misunderstanding anyway. However, the time to make these arguments is in response to the RFC, either supporting or opposing it. Does anyone have any suggestions for what else to put in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

How in the world are we supposed to know if something is "standard" english? This isn't french, there is no body that accepts or rejects words. Arguing over whether a particular word is "standard" english would be even less productive than arguing over whether the word's usage is civil... Monty ₈₄₅ 17:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Complete waste of space. You won't even get agreement on what constitutes SWE. And we should celebrate the rich tapestry of life and multiculturalism here, not sanitise it. I would be interested to see how you would enforce this on, say, people from India who frequently struggle to express themselves on Wikipedia. I say "would" because if this comes in then I'm gone. - Sitush (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Judge Stewart's opinion applies here. We can't define it, but we know it when we see it. You (Sitush) do express yourself in standard written English. I have seen competency issues with Indians, but not with their use of slang that varies from region to region. The individuals who have used language that is regionally offensive are native English speakers. There is no standard definition of Standard written English, but a native user of English, whether American, Briton, Australian, New Zealander, Canadian, or whatever knows it when she sees it, and won't be offended by it. This isn't intended to deal with users of English as a second language (unless they have picked up slang from the country in which they resided or from their teacher). It has to do with native users of English, who may not know that a word is offensive in another variety or culture (or who may know that it is, and may be intentionally pushing). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not seem difficult to refer people to a dictionary. See eg., [12]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So are we using the OED to show that the word is part of standard English as its contained therein, or are we using the OED to argue the word is not standard English, because the OED labels it taboo/slang? Monty ₈₄₅ 20:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Taboo,slang": is a pointer to the common understanding that the word is not in the Standard Written.[13] Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What about things tagged as "informal" such as admin? Monty ₈₄₅ 21:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And what about dictionaries that disagree? Brit English usage, for example, differs from US English. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I used Oxford. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that ain't Merriam-Webster & I'm sure that there will be differences because there certainly are differences in usage ... And if a UK court says a word is ok to use then I'm content to call this proposed RfC a load of bollocks ;) - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The differences are not substantive. [14][15] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You are missing my point, sorry. If we have to reach for a dictionary every time we write a message, we'll grind to a halt and we'll have innumerable pathetic, argumentative discussions about which dictionary etc. It will make the innumerable, pathetic discussions about civility pale by comparison. This is civility policing by the back door and it is civility policy of a far more pointed nature. People need to get a life and grow a skin, not be swayed by the righteousness indignation of a few vociferous "let's change the world" activists. Wikipedia's function is not to change the world but to provide information. - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Most people are familiar with the general use of words even without a dictionary. If there is some question, 'consult a few dictionaries' is no burden, since we consult references all the time. We provide sourced information - not just any information. WP:CIVILITY is not more pointed, the Standard Written proposal just provides guidance in a guideline to consult sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm pleased to read that you consider my usage to be SWE. That means I can carry on using "fuck" and "bollocks" from time to time, both of which are certainly in standard written and verbal usage where I come from and both of which I use on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. I would also suggest that it apply to edit summaries as well. As for others having no clue about whether or not something might be offensive... We can't know others' intentions. But we can say, politely, "That term offensive." This completely removes the impossible requirement that one has to prove what another person's intentions were. You say it was offensive; SWE agrees. You ask the person who said it to please redact or reword what they said. If they don't, or if they continue to use that term, they are in breach of civility. The exception, in this case, would be if SWE does not agree that a term is offensive and the community also agrees that it's not offensive. If a person repeatedly accuses another of incivility when neither SWE or the community agrees, there's your possible cause for a boomerang. Again, the key is removing the impossible hurdle of "proving" (which is nearly impossible) what the speaker's intention was.

To put it another way, if I'm at work and I say in a meeting or a memo, "John is a dick," or "Jane is a bitch," and a colleague reminds me that kind of language is against company policy (for whatever reason: the boss doesn't like it, or company lawyers have determined it's a liability) - then I apologize and I don't use it again, unless I'm prepared to be disciplined, perhaps even fired, for doing so. That is NOT censorship, it's how civilized people conduct business. Lightbreather (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You obviously haven't seen the umpteen rows concerning civility enforcement. It won't work because one person's incivility is another's acceptability and why should the opinion of the offended person carry more weight than that of the alleged offender. Political correctness is an idiotic, utopian concept and, effectively, that is what is being suggested here. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: Your above post implies that people who use that type of language, including specific individuals who used it in the other thread, are not civilized. That is clearly an uncivil position to take, and so by your own standard you should remove it. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It is my experience that bosses are among the most prolific users of words that you, Lightbreather, would seem to find offensive. Perhaps that is because the bosses I deal with don't come from places such as California, which is stereotypically a "right-on" place (although I suspect even there it is far from uncommon). It really doesn't matter where you participate on the web, if you aren't willing to tolerate some stuff that you don't particularly like and/or you lack a thick skin then you are not going to like it. I'd also venture that you won't like reading the dialogue of female characters in Chaucer but I guess that is no longer SWE even though it is still widely taught. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Your analysis of a bilateral duty on both parties to assume good faith is true in the absence of the proposed guideline. The proposed guideline will change that, and will put the responsibility clearly on the posting party, because standard written English does not have these cross-cultural misunderstandings" In that case, I'm opposed. Better, in my opinion, to write a guideline that explains the application of AGF to this issue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not the "7 words ..." which are the problem. It is the general tenor of interaction after a person says they do not appreciate certain language. "Standard written English" is not set in stone - it changes almost daily, and trying to pin it down as "correct speech" is a hopeless (IMO) cause. Some people manage to take umbrage at classical references, "fer gosh sake", and there is no explanation why some editors have wildly differing standards depending on whether they agree or disagree with someone as to whether that person has violated any rules of conduct at all. And it generally has no relationship to location of the editors, but rather on how they view the general tenor of discourse. Thus I would suggest:

Avoid taking umbrage where a polite comment stating your personal dislike of a word or phrase would defuse the situation.

Try to use language in general which one would find not objectionable were one to hear it in a mosque, church, synagogue or other assembly location. If you would find the words jarring in such locations, do not use them on Wikipedia.

There can be no list of "banned words" as the context and tenor of communication is paramount rather than specific words. This does not mean that words generally found objectionable in polite discourse should be used however.

Cheers. This is of course only my own opinion after reading the interminable and iterated comments thereon above. Collect (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Good start, here is a modified version that emphasizes bilateral requirement to AGF

*Speakers Try to use language which one would find not objectionable were one to hear it in a mosque, church, synagogue or other assembly location. If anyone could reasonably be expected to find the words jarring in such locations, it would be best if you do not use them on Wikipedia.

*Listeners If you are offended by someone else's language, first assume good faith and accept the possibility they did not mean to offend. With that in mind, you may ask them politely to change their choice of wording, but do it in a way that tries to build bridges, not blow them up.

*Speakers again If you are asked to change your word choice, first assume good faith and accept the possibility that someone just as reasonable as you are really does find the word offensive. How you respond might be seen as evidence that you want to build the community's power of collaboration - or tear it down.

*Listeners again If you are unsatisfied with the response, try not not escalate the WP:DRAMA at article or user talk pages, but instead make effective use of WP:Dispute resolution

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice suggestions - but I would not try the dichotomy between "speakers" and "listeners" as we are simultaneously both in many cases. Removing that dichotomy yields:

Use language which one would find not objectionable were one to hear it in a mosque, church, synagogue or other assembly location. If anyone could reasonably be expected to find the words jarring in such locations, it would be best if you do not use them on Wikipedia.

If you are offended by someone else's language, first assume good faith and accept the possibility they did not mean to offend. You may ask them politely to change their choice of wording, but avoid any anger in such a post. If you are the one asked to amend your words, accept the possibility that someone just as reasonable as you are really does find the word offensive.

If you are unsatisfied with the response, avoid drama and seek to use dispute resolution processes.

Does this work? Collect (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's is better, though my own observation of multiple dust-ups leads me to believe that many disputants are more interested in making the other person feel small, than they are in building our mutual powers of collaboration. For that reason, I would preserve the bit that says explicitly how others might interpret the response to a wording-change request. But I can live without it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I think that imposing "standard" English opens up some more serious discrimination issues than it would hope to fix. It will end up making people feel unwelcome from some countries that have less political/economical power and hence less say about what is "standard". I think it is more justifiable to suggest that people provide some explanation when they know something they say is at risk of being misunderstood, without enshrining any particular English; but even that is too much policy. We can't guarantee nobody is going to be a prat no matter how we talk to each other. Wnt (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I will be recommending that the following subheading be added to the talk page guidelines for collaborative talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll oppose for reasons stated above, and will instead advocate a modified version of what Collect and I whipped up.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative B
Under "Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration"

Avoid potentially offensive language Use language which one would find not objectionable were one to hear it in a mosque, church, synagogue or other assembly location. If anyone could reasonably be expected to find the words jarring in such locations, it would be best if you do not use them on Wikipedia. If you are offended by someone's language, first assume good faith by accepting the possibility they did not mean to offend. You may ask them politely to change their choice of wording. If you are the one asked to amend your words, accept the possibility that someone just as reasonable as you are really does find the word offensive. Both parties should avoid drama and either party may invoke the dispute resolution process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Support as being the superior proposal here. Collect (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative B Comments

The proponents of Alternative B, in good faith, inserted it in the pre-RFC paragraph before I had entered the formal RFC heading for the bot. I suggest that they move it, consistently with the formatting of the formal RFC paragraph, into the formal RFC paragraph. I suggest that they insert their !votes in the Survey and their comments in Threaded Discussion. I understand that they may not have understood that I was about to add a new high-level paragraph to be supported by the bot, but that is how RFCs work. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

question related to settings in a talk page that control the actions of an archiving bot

I'm trying to get a clear understanding about what's going on at a talk page that typically has just a handful of section entries on its active page. The reason that I thought that this was odd was that, in the text of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#When_to_condense_pages, it only goes as far as to say: It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections.

In a recent edit of the talk page concerned I stated: "The thing that I found confusing was that this page, even with the addition of last comments, currently has a size of just 10.2KB and that total would have been lower when the last set of data was moved. The archive that is currently being filled contains just 27.2KB of information. The earliest recorded date within the archived material was, I think, in Feb 2014. The combined data total far less than recommended levels. By taking a look at (and here I entered link structured: [ https: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:XXXXX/Archive_33&action=history ] we find that the premature archives seem to be being automatically made by [ [link to User page of the bot being used] ]. The last archive was made on the 29 July 2014 of a discussion that was started on 19 March 2014.

The settings in the talk page, as far as I can make out, are:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 33
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Talk:XXXXXXX/Archive  %(counter)d
}}

Any comments would be appreciated. Gregkaye (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The settings are to archive any thread with no activity for 10 or more days, but not archive if it would result in 3 or fewer threads remaining. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This bot does not have an option to check the size of the page to be archived. I don't think any of them do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: I'll explain how the bot chooses when to archive based upon the parameters of the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} above, but not in that order.

|minthreadsleft=3} - If the main talk page has more than three threads on it, archiving may be carried out
|algo=old(10d) - If the last timestamp in any given thread was more than ten days ago, that thread may be archived

If both of the above are satisfied, threads last posted to more than 10 days ago are moved to the archive provided that at least three threads (of any age) remain on the page.

|archive=Talk:XXXXXXX/Archive %(counter)d - This is the "skeleton" page name for the archive pages.
|counter=33 - The value given here is used to replace the %(counter)d in the "skeleton" page name, so giving the true page name for the archive, i.e. Talk:XXXXXXX/Archive 33.
|maxarchivesize=200K - When the archive page exceeds 200 Kbytes in size, no more threads are archived to that page. The counter is incremented, becoming |counter=34 and so the next thread that is archived goes into a new archive - in this case Talk:XXXXXXX/Archive 34.
|archiveheader={{aan}} - When creating a new archive page, whatever is specified by the |archiveheader= parameter is added at the very top - in this case the {{aan}} template - and then threads are added after that.
|minthreadstoarchive=1 - this may be ignored: it only has an effect if set to 2 or more.

The bot does not provide a means to force archiving when the main talk page reaches a certain size.

The page in question currently has four threads. Their most recent timestamps are: (1) 08:19, 31 July 2014; (2) 14:42, 26 July 2014; (3) 06:42, 25 July 2014; (4) 00:06, 2 August 2014. Although there are more than three threads, none of them is more than ten days old, so none are due for archive.

The last archive of that page occurred at 00:47, 29 July 2014 and one thread was archived: its latest timestamp was 12:51, 18 July 2014 - slightly over ten days earlier. Four threads were left behind, because none were more than ten days old (the oldest of those that remained was timestamped 06:42, 25 July 2014 - less than four days earlier). --Redrose64 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64. I am just surprised that a system can work like this, The guidelines talk of archiving or refactoring a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections. Even if sections in a talk page get added that contain just a title and a line or two of text, other sections can get bumped if a user doesn't login for a couple of weeks even if a page had little content. IMPO it would be better if the bot would only become active if both parameters, overall file size and a sensible minimum number of sections, was exceeded. I also think that a time parameter would be very relevant. Gregkaye (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The file size limit set by |maxarchivesize=200K concerns the size of the archive that the bot creates. It has nothing to do with the size of the page that is being archived, for which the controls are based upon: (i) the number of threads (however small) on the page; and (ii) the ages of the threads, based on the latest timestamp in the thread. They're adjustable: if you wanted archiving to occur no sooner than 90 days (just under three months), you would set |algo=old(90d); if you wanted archiving to leave at least six threads behind, you would set |minthreadsleft=6

Guidelines are not firm rules (they are stronger than essays but weaker than policies). Where WP:TALKCOND says "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." this is a recommendation, not an enforceable rule, and is intended to be adjusted as appropriate for the circumstances. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. Perhaps recommendations could also be developed that pages are not archived when a page is still below a certain file size or before it has reached a certain number of subjects or no sooner than a certain number of days have elapsed since the last edit. Any user may take a Wikibreak or just a little time out and yet still find that a topic that they had been debating was swiftly archived in their absence. Gregkaye (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: One thread - the one timestamped 06:42, 25 July 2014 - was archived at 00:46, 5 August 2014 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs). This was just over ten days old, and although there are now four threads left, one more than the minimum set by |minthreadsleft=3, the oldest is timestamped 14:42, 26 July 2014 - less than ten days ago. This one should be archived tomorrow morning, unless somebody posts to it in the meantime. This will leave three threads on the page, and no more can then be archived unless another thread is started. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing talk page posts

It's been brought to my attention that collapsing off-topic posts may not be general practice as suggested in the current guidelines, and may create navigation or WP:ACCESS difficulties for some users. Does WP:TPO accurately reflect current consensus? If so, are there common difficulties that result from collapsing posts that warrant mentioning in WP:TPO and in template documentation? If not, how might WP:TPO be reworded? G. C. Hood (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Some people like to leave junk around citing AGF or other rationales, while others don't—we can't all be the same. Re the issue at WT:RFC, I do not know what is standard procedure there, and assuming you are not a regular on the page either, I would suggest accepting the advice given (what does it matter if it's right or not?). The posts you collapsed are obviously inappropriate, so if you feel motivated, move them to the current archive, or if you feel bold, just delete them. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing talk page sections (rather than archiving, as suggested above) may create navigation difficulties. However, I think the current consensus, that clearly off-topic posts can be collapsed, and clearly off-topic sections can be archived (although I would delete them only if otherwise objectionable). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also typical at WT:RFC to assume that any message about any dispute is on-topic. In the instant case, the editor was actually asking for comments ("can you please give me your views on this"). The official advice would have to be "Sorry, but you don't qualify as two people, so you can't find an RFC/U for admin behavior" and "RFCs about article content belong on article talk pages", but it's not actually an off-topic message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've edited WP:TPO to reflect that there may not be a generally-applicable consensus in support of collapsing talk page posts. The revised wording is permissive, but less likely to be in disagreement with contrary practices at RfC or elsewhere. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of TPO

At the following discussion ‪Wikipedia talk:Deletion process‬#RfC: Can admins revert NACs if they disagree with the closer's interpretation of consensus (WP:NACD), pertaining to AfD?, the guideline at WP:TPO has been cited as evidence that administrators may not reopen discussions (RM, AfD, etc.) which have been closed by non-admins. Any input regarding the interpretation of TPO is welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Followup: That discussion has been snow-closed, as affirming that admins can re-open discussions that have been closed by non-admins. Should this be added to the TPO guidelines as another "example of appropriately editing others' comments"? Something like this? --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin oversight: Re-opening by an administrator of a discussion that was closed by a non-administrator.
I don't think we need to update TPO for an edge case like this. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that WP:TPO doesn't need to be changed. Editors should follow WP:TPO when they are reopening discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC on word choice and cross-cultural sensitivity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Although this RfC was doubtless initiated in the best of faith, the entire discussion is a little bit silly and best abandoned. There is no consensus for any proposal, and significant opposition to measures perceived as attempting to create an enforced standard of decorum. If any addition or alteration to the guideline is necessary, I think most people agree that we should bear in mind that language which may be normal in some cultures may be perceived differently in others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the talk page guidelines recommend the use of Standard written English? (An alternate policy proposal is also being drafted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Include !votes only in the Survey section. Comments in the Survey section may be ignored or moved. !votes in the Threaded Discussion section may be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

!votes may be marked for Alternative A, Alternative B, None, or Other. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

To make room for ideas neither of us had considered before you drafted the RFC I converted the alternatives from standalone subsections to a bulleted listNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Question for this RFC that does not favor a particular proposal

Should we have a guideline somewhere on how to handle language that is acceptable to some, but might cause offense in our multicultural community, and if so, what should it say?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Drafts of alternatives

Add one of these under "Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration"

Alternative A Recommendation: Use Standard Written English

Standard written English differs only in minor detail (orthography, occasionally number) between regional English varieties. Slang, by contrast, varies greatly between regional varieties. A word that is considered humorous in one variety of English may be deeply offensive in another. In order to facilitate cross-cultural communication and reduce cross-cultural misunderstanding, it is recommended that talk page discussion, as much as possible, be in standard written English. The use of slang is discouraged because it poses a greater risk of cultural misunderstanding than does standard written English. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative B (bilateral need to assume good faith without attempting to define "standard written English")

Avoid potentially offensive language Use language which one would find not objectionable were one to hear it in a mosque, church, synagogue or other assembly location. If anyone could reasonably be expected to find the words jarring in such locations, it would be best if you do not use them on Wikipedia. If you are offended by someone's language, first assume good faith by accepting the possibility they did not mean to offend. You may ask them politely to change their choice of wording. If you are the one asked to amend your words, accept the possibility that someone just as reasonable as you are really does find the word offensive. Both parties should avoid drama and either party may invoke the dispute resolution process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative C

Swear with fucking abandon Use whatever foul language you want and tell people who complain to file at ANI if they don't like it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Heard you swearin'. Mind if I join in? Crap, boobs, crap. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative D (Same as B but omit religious place examples)

Avoid potentially offensive language Use language appropriate for job interviews and meeting a significant other's family or parents for the first time. If anyone could reasonably be expected to find the words inappropriate in such circumstances, it would be best if you do not use them on Wikipedia. If you are offended by someone's language, first assume good faith by accepting the possibility they did not mean to offend. You may ask them politely to change their choice of wording. If you are the one asked to amend your words, accept the possibility that someone just as reasonable as you are really does find the word offensive. Both parties should avoid drama and either party may invoke the dispute resolution process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Support Alternative A - Prefer Alternative B to none. Reason for encouraging standard written English is that it will avoid the use of offensive language, and minimizes the risk of gaming the system by using language that has variant meanings, some of which are offensive. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please delete my words here and move the "discussion" part of our !vote to the discussion section. Else why have separate sections? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt B - Utterly opposed to Alt A Is "utterly" offensive to cows? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt B - Alt A is an ideal, but unworkable in this multi-culture project. --Pete (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose all. Civility enforcement is Wikipedia's equivalent of the War on Drugs. The harder you try to punish incivility, the easier you make it to be uncivil by means that include accusing others of incivility! While Alt B may be good advice for a very large proportion of the time, it is not a useful thing to demand by Wikipedia administrative processes. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alt B as being responsive to the concerns expressed, being given in simple language, and recognizing that problems do exist and that this is a reasonable approach. Collect (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose both - we already have lots of behavioral polices and guidelines that govern what we do and say on talk pages... no need for more. It comes down to this... we assume good faith. If someone says something that causes you to take offense, assume that they didn't intend it that way. If you really can't ignore it, just let them know that you are offended (and why) and give them a chance to apologize. 'Nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose both Not sure what the point of this is. Seems like a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. —Farix (t | c) 12:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose creating yet another policy for people to ignore --Carnildo (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Alternative D. Second choice, Alternative B. Lightbreather (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose all as unnecessary. G. C. Hood (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Alt C, fuck yeah! betafive 07:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose all. We don't need more instruction creep when "use common sense" should be adequate. --Holdek (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I strongly disagree with a bilateral need to assume good faith when the word or phrase that is used is one that is considered offensive in some varieties of English. The purpose of either guideline change is to shift the burden to the poster. Normally there should be a bilateral obligation to assume good faith. But in the case of the use of slang that is sometimes considered offensive, continuing that obligation on the part of the reader permits the writer to game the system by deliberately using a phrase or word that may be offensive and then claiming that it was meant in good faith. In the case of language that is known to be sometimes offensive, the obligation should be on the poster to avoid being misunderstood by not using possibly offensive language in the first place. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That perspective relies on two erroneous beliefs and they are

Although there is no "official" authority on "standard written English", that comment implies that every word uttered by every editor will be instantly assessed exactly the same way by every possible reasonable person - which is nuts.
That coment erroneously says Alternative B will shift the burden to the poster; as a principle drafter of Alt B it was not my intent to shift any burdens. Instead, it was my goal to write text that would hopefully assist emotionally upset eds apply existing policies/guidelines in these situations - stuff like AGF/UserTalk/DR/Civility etc. No burden would be shifted to anyone.

In addition, if Alternative B allows a few examples of gaming, then eds who play that game can be easily identified and blocked for prevention, or banned for determined GAMING if they just keep doing it. That's a much smaller headache than expecting every ed to fret over every utterance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

While much of the above discussion makes the rule sound like an optional suggestion to editors, failing to abide by suggestions in a policy can result in sanctions. Its clear from the discussion of gaming and good faith that the intent of the proposal is to create an enforceable regime of language censorship. Don't get confused by the use of words like recommend in the proposal, in the context of a Policy, that really ends up meaning require. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I rebutted this in the comment below that includes yellow formatting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Re Alt B: if seeking to ensure that language used is multiculturally acceptable, it seems strange to impose a supposition of what is acceptable in religious buildings as the standard of what is acceptable on WP talk pages. Acceptability of language in religious buildings will vary widely between faiths, and within different assemblies of each faith, and is not amenable to an overall judgement. Again, many do not have religious belief; some actively object to religion, and may well object to religious statements uttered in those venues; if non-believers were to express their own views there, those views in their turn could be found objectionable. I don't see a clear need to add to existing policies and guidance on civility and no-personal-attacks: Noyster (talk), 17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My reading of that is that it is not support of any faith in particular, nor of religion in general, just an example of places where polite talk is customary and people who might normally swear and curse restrain their habitual behaviour. Other more widely acceptable examples might be broadcast news shows or parliamentary proceedings. Parliament can get pretty rowdy here in Canberra, but if certain words are used, members are suspended. --Pete (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If we are to use "standard written English", what happens when I write in a way which comes naturally to me (and which isn't much different from "standard written English", whatever that is), but where the other person uses something that whilst inoffensive, is darned near incomprehensible? See posts at Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Signature templates and User talk:Redrose64#Admin or rollback rights. I just don't know how to explain things in a manner which he can understand; at the same time, I can't understand over half of what he's saying. But it's not an obviously foreign language, and there isn't a single swear in the whole thing. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Potentially offensive language and appropriate responses to it are already covered by guidelines at WP:TALK#USE, WP:TALKNO and WP:GOODFAITH and by the WP:CIVILITY policy. The suggested alternatives B and D are especially problematic, since they assume that personal standards developed in certain social or professional settings could be applied to Wikipedia. An addition to the guidelines specifically addressing "word choice and cross-cultural sensitivity" would be both unnecessary and ill-advised. G. C. Hood (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Etiquette also applies. That guideline is similarly redundant and could be demoted to an essay. G. C. Hood (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Enforceable Talk Page language restrictions are a bad idea

Enforcement against language that doesn't rise to the level of violating WP:NPA is going to be more disruptive than the harm these proposals seek to address. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Support as proposer, the language editors use can still be considered when it comes to judging a battle ground mentality, bias, or whether the person is WP:NOTHERE. But sanctioning editors on word choice alone is not acceptable. It will encourage editors to play games of noticeboard gotcha against those they disagree with, rather than brushing off the language and trying to solve the underlying dispute. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how many fucking former editors would have had the balls to stick around if some of us hadn't been such assholes in the way we use language? Satire aside, the do nothing alternative leaves these issues up to existing civility/AGF standards.... which is what Alternative B does. The difference is that Alternative B also expects people on both sides to grow up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Support per my comment above. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Support. Agree that more editors would then find it easier to see offensive remarks and run to drama and conflict boards to seek redress. Personally, I would be reduced to writing in Simple English with no adjects and adverbs at all. Lest I accidentally fall afoul of such a directive enforceable by administrators. Fylbecatulous talk 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears you don't understand Alt B. Under Alt B, you can use your reasonable use of language and not worry.... until and unless someone pipes up, which is exactly the way it works now. If someone pipes up, then you can either choose to change it or not change it. Which is just how it works now. One thing Alt B adds is an expecation to take objection - if any is raised - seriously, and give it serious consideration. Which is different than it is now, because now people can just brush off such feedback - and the references to AGF/CIVILITY/NPA/TPG with impunity. Alt B lets you speak as you reasonably would normally, but only requires you to pause and really think about it if someone asks you to. Thus Alt B doesn't really let people say "So fuckin' sue me if you don't like my word choice". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see how this helps anything. User A posts a link to WP:DONTBEADICK in a discussion. User B tells user A that its offensive because its using a gendered slang term for the male anatomy and implying that people in the discussion need to be reminded not to be one. User A concludes its fine because its a long standing essay that even made its way to meta. User B is still upset, and opens an AN/I discussion. Then what? We argue whether linking to a long standing and highly respected essay is permissible under the revised guideline? Monty ₈₄₅ 17:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you represent Alt B fairly, NAEG. It changes what can be used in the first place. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 19:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change, so yes. Besides the essay only exists in that some like sophomoric humor and others think catch-22s are funny. Oxymoronically, the essay says to not call people a dick, so it's hard to imagine the circumstances under which User A in your example would link to the essay without at least implying that someone is being one, and even harder to imagine examples where User A would be unable to make their point without reference to the essay. The best example I can think of is when User A calls User B a dick, and User C tells User A that was a dick-move by citing the essay. But there are lot of ways that grown-ups can say the same thing without foul language.

Most importantly, sure the DICK essay has been around a long time. Unfortunately, the number of productive, constructive editors has not enjoyed the same track record. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I understand Alt B. My premise still stands that complaints would escalate. I personally am not offensive here and even filled out the failed Civility Enforcement Questionnaire a couple of years ago. However, the thought of 'word police' here gives me the shivers. I do not intend to dress my off-article comments in church gloves and hat. Fylbecatulous talk 20:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Question How is this different than the newly-added Option C? Do the supporters here oppose Option C? If so please explain why such a position is not inherently contradictory. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Support and I oppose Alt C, which would often contravene WP:CIVILITY if not WP:NPA as well. Nothing here has convinced me that we need to add to these policies specifically for talk pages. Alt A would freeze our fingers over the keyboard and not even help prevent people being insulted: we couldn't use mild idioms like "this argument doesn't cut the mustard" but could still say "you are a liar and an idiot". Alt B proposes that acceptability is tied to some external standard, which rapidly shifts from some generic religious building to the Australian federal parliament. With what such standard would all or most editors the world over be sufficiently familiar? I can't imagine any formulation which wouldn't simply increase the volume of WP:Wikilawyering : Noyster (talk), 11:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Support; I hereby oppose Alt A, B and C too. I don't think we need more rules; it's already not OK to, for example, call another user a cunt, or describe their activity using the word cunt, per NPA. It is and should remain acceptable here to, for example, say that one likes sexual organs, such as ones' own and/or those of one's sexual partner(s), and to refer to them with 4 letter words.
Oppose While having specific words be forbidden is futile, the idea that we should not assert that "anything goes" is certainly proper. Collect (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The proposal contradicts WP:Civility and its vague regarding "enforcement", it also is overboard as it would be used to disable people from voicing their opinion that something is incivil. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a rude word in Australia. We call everyone a c*$<@ck$%, so just suck it up, sister

Alt B will stymie those who game the system by claiming that calling another editor a "f*&^en n*&&a f@g c%$t m$&^%$f%#er" is pretty much a term of endearment in their culture. It also nixes those who claim to be offended by robust but not obscene words. We may not be the ideal genteel gentlemanly (or ladymanly) society here, but at least we shouldn't s^&t in each other's faces. --Pete (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why the prissy asterisks (etc.)? Not very Australian… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I detest the attitude that it's okay to intentionally offend someone because "why, every Australian uses such language". We're not all f*uckwits. --Pete (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand... it is not at all unusual for people to unintentionally offend someone... and then be surprised when told it was offensive.

You see... The flaw with saying "It's not a rude word in Australia. We call everyone a c*$<@ck$%, so just suck it up, sister" isn't in the part where you explain that c*$<@ck$% isn't a rude word ... the flaw is in the last part - where you say "so suck it up." If someone is upset with your language and complains about it... telling them to "suck it up" just makes the situation worse... all it takes to defuse the situation is a simple apology. If more is needed, start off with "I apologize" and then explain about how the term isn't a rude word down under. That makes it an explanation, and not a justification. 74.73.250.177 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps irony detectors should be given out more freely. Just hover over a statement and the needle jiggles a little. Or a lot, in this case. --Pete (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Putting New Section somewhere else

On my talk page I receive a lot of RFC's I like to keep them separate from the actual discussion with editors on my page for clarity's sake. Is there a piece of code I could insert which would allow the pressing of the New Section button to have their section created mid page rather than at the bottom of the page? SPACKlick (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Feedback request service, Template:Frs user and the bot source code, I don't see any means for the bot posting anywhere other than as a conventional "new section" at the bottom of the primary User talk page. You could ask Legoktm (talk · contribs) if it is possible to add a feature, either to post to a subpage (like Signpost) or to overwrite the previous notice, like SuggestBot (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014

This edit request to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

14.140.121.226 (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)great

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If there are objections do not refactor a page

This change (August 2012) to the the heading "Refactoring for relevance" to "Off-topic posts" and the follow on advice, completely ignored the issue that appears in WP:Refactoring and has been at the top of the templates used to hide conversations years before this edit was made.

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Nevertheless, if the page is larger than the recommended size, then archiving of the talk page, or sections with no recent contributions, without refactoring can still be done.
— WP:Refactoring (since June 2007‎)

This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.
— Template:Hidden archive top/doc (since March 2010‎)

These templates should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.
— Template:Collapse top/doc (since March 2010‎)

The last thing we need is people having content disputes on talk pages about content disputes in articles. Hence my addition lifted from Template:Hidden archive top/doc: "these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather I don't think you wording is an improvident, I chose the wording with care from Template:Hidden archive top/doc out of the three I presented because it allows an uninvolved administrator/editor to hat a conversation. The problems with the close templates occurs when involved editors close a conversation (not infrequently including a parting shot by way of an close box title eg "Closing off topic rant by user:xyz"). Also removing refactoring from the second sentence opens that sentence up to the same potential abuse as the first one had before it was modified. -- PBS (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your and Lightbreather's changes, as seen here, because non-minor changes to it should have WP:Consensus (whether WP:Silent consensus or otherwise). Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Part of the consensus process is a reverter explaining why they disagree with the changes. NE Ent 01:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted because, in addition to thinking that significant changes to Wikipedia policies or guidelines should generally be discussed at the talk pages of those policies or guidelines first (which is an approach I also recently applied at the WP:Reliable sources page), PBS's objections to Lightbreather's changes clearly show that these matters need discussion. I am also considering to analyze the matters and give my take on them. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally, you should not revert unless you personally object, and then you should be prepared to explain your personal objections. If PBS wanted it reverted now, he can do that himself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur; I've reverted to the prior version. It's fine to revert if one objects to a change but justification for the revert needs to come in the immediate time frame. NE Ent 02:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing and NE Ent, I disagree, and why I disagree is made clear above. I personally object to significant changes being made to Wikipedia policies or guidelines without discussion on the talk pages of those policies or guidelines about those changes first. And that is indeed a good enough reason to revert, as is made clear by the notes at the top of these pages, and as has been made clear time and time again by my reverting in such cases, including the aforementioned WP:Reliable sources edit. It's been often enough that changes have been made to policies and guidelines only to be reverted months later because a significant number of editors missed that WP:Creep instance. WP:Silent consensus is too often a fail, which is why it's also only an essay. I uphold WP:Consensus until that is no longer the WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what policy actually says: "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance." NE Ent 02:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And where did I state anything of necessity? I used the word generally, and I stand by that, per what I have stated above. If a Wikipedia editor goes around making significant changes to a Wikipedia policy or guideline without WP:Consensus, that Wikipedia editor had better be prepared that someone is likely to revert him or her on the simple basis that those changes should perhaps be discussed on those policy or guideline talk pages first. And it's generally accepted among very experienced Wikipedia editors that once that revert is made, there is perhaps no WP:Consensus and the matter should be discussed on the policy or guideline talk page, and that the new material should not be restored unless there is WP:Consensus to restore it. You mention policy; WP:Consensus is policy, and too few Wikipedia editors respect it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a significant change, IMO not supported by policy. That this is in conflict with WP:REFACTOR means that one of them should be changed, but I'd side go with modifying WP:REFACTOR first. The claim that someone reverting a major policy change made without consensus needs to disagree with the change is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Reverting without explanation is not consensus. Making edits without discussing is part of the consensus process .See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. NE Ent 10:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Arthur Rubin. And as can be seen in the edit history and above, I did revert with an explanation. That two editors think it was not a good enough explanation is something I clearly disagree with, especially since my revert was a standard revert (as in the type of revert widely accepted in Wikipedia practice). Flyer22 (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

PBS, when you started this discussion, did you mean to ping me? I was busy for a few days and this finally hit my radar, which seems to be in part about my edits, but you pinged User:C above, so I'm not sure who's talking about what. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Lightbreather I did not intend to ping you when I started this discussion, but to explain the change I had made. I did ping you when you altered the wording I added, but this edit, I suspect accidentally, changed the name in the ping. I have now corrected it. -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a help if we leave the who did what and discuss the change. Let us start with the change I made, to this behavio[u]ral guideline which is explained at the start of this section. the change brings the behaviour recommended in this behavioural guideline into line with behaviour recommended elsewhere and which pre-dates the changes made to this guideline 2012 that changed wording about "Refactoring for relevance" to "Off-topic posts". As I said above the last thing we need is people having content disputes on talk pages about content disputes in articles. -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I sure didn't mean to rock the boat. The page was on my watchlist from participating in a discussion a couple of months ago. Put simply:

I got a notice and read the edit summary and the edit itself.[16]
I read the section in question (Others' comments - Off-topic posts), plus WP:RTP, and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, and found nothing about "these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."
But I did find this: "[these templates] should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing," so I boldly edited[17] the bold edit (above) that preceded mine, plus a couple of copyedits[18][19] that made the point concise without changing its meaning.

However, if there's some deeper policy discussion that I didn't catch, I didn't and don't mean to mess with that. Lightbreather (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather, I don't think there is no need to explain your motives, But I would appreciate it if you would look again at the smaller change I made (the wording is taken from the {{Hat}} template (which used to be used more than the collapse template and I think was more often abused), and give me your feed back on it . -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22 please explain any substantive problems you have with my wording (over and above procedural ones). -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin you wrote It's a significant change, IMO not supported by policy this is not a policy page, but a behavioural guideline. The additional wording I added here, has been part of the behavioural guidance since before the changes made to this page in August 2012 which introduced the current wording, so it is not a major change in guidance. There is a good reason for this guidance: it stops edit warring over refactoring of talk pages, (something which can happen when people are passionate about changes articles and have already made reverts to the article). If this guidance is not given what do you suggest as a better alternative? -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The changes actually made in August 2012 are not the ones under discussion, and do not support anything like "However, per WP:REFACTOR, these templates should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing." In fact, unless WP:REFACTOR has changed recently, it doesn't support that, either. For the specific change we are talking about, perhaps emphasizing "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." Something along the lines of "Generally, do not re-hide material unless its restoration is clearly disruptive." I don't want to go beyond "generally", as discussion of edits which turn out to have been made by a banned editor probably should be hidden or closed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not add what you think I added. What I add is what I said in my first entry to this section which was "these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." (See here). -- PBS (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with that, as either indicative of current behavior or as an appropriate goal, but it's not completely unreasonable. I see nothing that should prohibit an editor from redacting or hatting personal attacks against him/herself, regardless of objections. If there is consensus that it is a personal attack, it should be redacted, regardless of consensus that it should be redacted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of personal attacks, unless they qualify for redaction, which most "mere" personal attacks do not. I do not disagree with hatting, which is a good idea, but removal makes it more work to present the case against the editor who engages in the personal attacks (they have to be retrieved from history). In the case of personal attacks that do qualify for redaction, the administrator who redacts the attack will presumably also impose the block. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin this is about "Off-topic posts" not abut civility. But what you say does not happen now now because of the wording in the documents of the of the close templates, but it was a problem back in 2010 before the wording was introduced into the documents. The change that was made to this behaviour guideline in 2012, ought to have included a reference to this prohibition. The problem we have here is that if an involved person hats a conversation, then it is reversed, the hatting is put back and reversed, then taken to ANI a drama on a talk page is wasting every ones time. The reason why the wording in hat was changed to "close" instead of "archive" was because some thought it was not refactoring but archiving and not covered by the lead in refactoring. A simple rule that if you are an involved editor you don't insist on hatting a conversation over the objections of others is easy to understand and easy to enforce. Can you imagine the fire-storm at ANI if someone was to get into an edit war with a well known editor from Manchester for hatting one of his personal attacks/incivility? Much better and usual way to deal with personal attacks is to ask the person to withdraw it, then if they refuse go to ANI. There nothing in WP:RPA or WP:RUC which covers a situation where an involved editor insists on hatting a comment is appropriate, as removal (possibly with the use of {{RPA}}) not hatting would be more appropriate for situations where refactoring is warranted.

Let us suppose that if you reply to this comment and disagree with what I have written and I were to {{hat}} it with the comment "Arthur Rubin is WP:NOTGETTINGIT". With the wording I propose you could revert my edit (at the moment you could justify it with the comment in the hatting documentation). If however there was not such wording then as my use of the template does not alter your wording but instead wraps around it, if you revert my edit or remove my words I could argue that you were in breach of this guideline "Never edit ... someone's comment". The wording I am proposing makes it clear that if I use {{hat}} and you disagree with my analysis, you can revet it and I may not reimpose it. Without that prohibition if I reinstall my {{hat}}ing then when you go to ANI I can wiki-lawyer that it is you who is in the wrong. A simple rule like I am proposing stops that sort of wikidrama, while not impeding {{hat}}ting by univolved editors. -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I can accept that in most cases; there are some edge cases where a disruptive editor can continue disruption if he/she/it has supporters, but that is to be accepted. However, we need a pair of templates for "hat requested top" and "hat requested bottom", which may display something like "closed" template, but put the talk page into a category which can be monitored by uninvolved editors, and may not be removed by an involved editor other than the one who placed it. If something like that were put in place, and were noted in this guideline, I would withdraw my objection. I can't say I'd support it, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What you are proposing is a whole new process (rather like Wikipedia:Third opinion) for which there may or may not be support. The change I am proposing here clarifies something which was already common practice before the bullet point under discussion was altered and ought to have been included at that time. As you "can accept that in most cases" why not support the change if or when your proposed new third opinion process is up and running then the wording can be looked at again. -- PBS (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, what you are proposing is not "common practice" except sometimes for "off-topic" posts; or, to be precise, there are too many exceptions to it being "common practice" that it would be wrong to state it as such unless there is an alternative procedure available. If there was such a procedure in place, I would accept the change. If it were made clear that it applied only to "off-topic" closure, not for civility or personal attacks, then it is still a change, but one that I might accept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The proposed addition is for a bullet point called Off-topic posts "Do you have any example since 2010 where {{collapse top}} or {{Hat}} have been used by "involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors"? -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Letter greetings - Current text < > widespread actual practice

I just noticed the TPG text says

Avoid letter greetings & closings: Discussions are not letter exchanges. "Hello," "Warm regards," and the like are distracting, are a waste of space, and are simply sarcastic when bracketing criticism.

However, my own experience is that LOTS of established editors will say "Hi ____! blah blah blah. Cheers" or variants on that. I have never ever heard this guideline even mentioned, much less in any enforcement proceeding.

Seems to me, this snuck in under the WP:CREEP radar and needs modification or deletion to match widespread community practice. Not a big deal in the scheme of things, of course. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines should provide guidance. I did not start this reply with "Hi, thanks for your comment, it was great to hear from you", and I'm not going to finish with "Have a nice day!". The guideline should explain how things are usually done, and usually letter greetings and closings are totally inappropriate. Experienced editors sometimes do things differently because they have a background with the recipient—that's fine, but that is outside the scope of what's possible to say in a guideline. Newbies should be told what is expected. Johnuniq (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The text violates WP:GOODFAITH by presuming such greetings to be sarcastic when included with critical comments. While it seems to reflect current practice on talk pages outside of user space, posts on user talk pages often include the so-called "letter greetings & closings", reflecting conventions commonly used in e-mail communications. The quoted bullet point should be deleted. G. C. Hood (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep -- while it might be reasonable to say greetings which are regarded as uncivil by the person addressed should be removed if there is an objection to them, the language above is quite discordant with actual practice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting the occasional insincere, sarcastic "Have a nice day" message closer is better than seeing a restriction on such phrases that would also stop us getting sincere and pleasant "Have a nice day" message closers. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving uncited material to article talkpage

Question: What do editors think of the practice of moving uncited text from an article to the article talkpage? As with most of the material moved here.

Most of that material would be subject to being challenged and removed as uncited, per wp:v. Once moved to the talkpage -- Does it however properly remain on the talkpage, not subject to removal, even though lacking refs?

Tx for your input. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have seen, on numerous articles, (though seen in random passing so I cannot cite specific pages), examples of content deemed not fit to be in an article, but still deemed to be interesting, be preserved in talk pages, sometimes in the form of separate talk page archives. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously if it's a BLP violation, no. If it's specific text that is meant to be discussed to decide whether it should be put back into the article, yes. If it's material that would never be appropriate for the article, no again. A list of stores in Basildon Town Centre doesn't look as though it would ever be appropriate, even if sourced. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on an AfD about its suitability - the editor who added it has been asked if there are sources to back it up but has not yet responded. However the consensus (from everyone except the editor who put it there) is that the content is not suitable for the article. Its ongoing presence was a major reason for delete opinions in the AfD. That is why I removed it. There are also comments that it seemed interesting and useful information and that would be a pity to loose it completely. There is also no suggestion from anyone that the information is wrong. That (as well as the fact that it is still being discussed) is why I put it on the talk page. It would do not harm if it ended up being placed in an archive on the talk page, imho. It is interesting content, does no harm, and deleting it completely seems a bit hurtful and disrespectful to the editor who probably spent some considerable time gathering the info and formatting the tables. I have seen far worse things on talk pages, preserved in open view for all time. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages, like any other page, are subject to WP:BLP; but as long as BLP is satisfied, they are not subject to WP:V so no refs are necessary. Indeed, the article talk page is an excellent place to put unsourced material and invite other people to provide sources for it. Once on the talk page, it can be amended to suit any sources that are forthcoming, also reworded where necessary to avoid WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. When people are satisfied that the wording is good and is now supported by some decent reliable sources, the formerly-contentious material may then be copied, with its newly-found refs, back to the article.

Without knowing which AfD this is, I can't opine on specifics. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite correct, unsourced or poorly sourced, material on a living person should be removed from talk pages (until it is properly sourced), if the issue is 'is this a proper source' best to link to the source and answer that question first (if it is a improper source it may have to be eventually (or in some cases sooner) revdel'd under WP:BLPEL) but a discussion of the sources propriety can occur either on the talk page or at the BLPN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a BLP article, it is an article about the history and the architecture/urban design of a 1950s/1960s planned town centre in England. This is the article: Basildon Town Centre. The banished to the talk page content is a history of all the occupants of the shops within the original town centre and the later indoor shopping mall. I think it will never be suitable to be in the actual article in its current form, but someone probably spent a considerable time finding out all the information, so seems to me a pity to loose it completely. Though of course the AfD might loose the whole article complete with talk page. If you think the article should remain, please vote keep! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination, prejudice, bias etc

There is nothing currently in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments with direct reference to Discrimination, prejudice, bias or similar issues, just mention of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Trolling(Wikipedia:Deny recognition) and Wikipedia:Vandalism.

I recently reviewed a thread that had been totally deleted. I restored the thread and, not knowing what best to do, again deleted the specific posts that I thought to be most offensive. Wikipedia:PREJUDICE currently links to the limited content at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias and prejudice. Any thoughts on how, if at all, content on this issue can be developed? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group. -complete wording from WP:PREJUDICE.

I often see attacks against groups of editors, as defined by gender, gender-preference, nationality, native language and so on. Sometimes with a suggestion that some groups (use of language is the most obvious) are incompetent to edit Wikipedia, or are biased in some way. This sort of behaviour might not directly target a specific editor, but any editor who is a member of these groups is bound to feel the hate.

Even accusations of bias can go too far. Most people are biased towards (and/or against) specific groups, even if it is just the supporters of a given football team. Passions can flare. We need biased editors, who will often go further into a subject and present more points of view from more diverse sources than we would otherwise have if we relied on just mainstream media. So long as the bias doesn't go further into our articles than NPOV allows.

We are a broad church - the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - and have done very well from this, where other, narrower, competitors have fallen short. I support the inclusion of some injunction against prejudice in these guidelines. Gregkaye, would you like to put forward a draft for discussion, something that would have been useful in the incident you mention? --Pete (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Pete, I didn't have anything specific in mind at the time but now think that a bullet section might be put into WP:TPNO even with a section of the text that you quoted:

Without prejudice Editors must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gregkaye! This has been here for two months with no dissenting voices, so it has been added as you suggest. We don't tolerate prejudice or discrimination in our broad church, and on discussion pages it is important that all feel welcome to participate. --Pete (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Pete. Thanks - you're a star. Just to add something further on the topic: I think that there is a place for racial, religious, ethnic differences, quirks and even (when evident) challenges or weaknesses to be mentioned if appropriate support for claims is evident. I don't think we should ever become a bastion of PC bureaucracy but it is clear that definite and citable safeguards against genuine issues of abuse must also be in force. I would be happy for others to propose any suitable modifications to relevant texts to ensure that this balance is achieved and maintained. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The recent edit may need rethinking (that is, removal). The WP:PREJUDICE link is to an Arbcom case where the obvious was stated: "An editor must not engage in...[prejudice]". It is talking about an editor who makes a habit of prejudicial behavior in multiples places. It is not talking about a group of editors discussing an issue connected with an article and which some other editor thinks is prejudicial. Where is an example of an inappropriate discussion which would have needed this addition to the guideline? I have two concerns with the wording: we don't spell out all ways people can be unhelpful because that gives the impression that anything not on the list is ok; and, we don't want to give wikilawyers reasons to disrupt discussions by claiming they are prejudicial—it should be obvious that if they are gratuitously prejudicial they are inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq I agree and think that your comments provide the logical extension to my concerns regarding a PC bureaucracy. I think that a broader issue relates to gaming and the potential development of factions in Wikipedia where editors get support or oppose editors not based on conduct but based on other editorial preferences which may or may not involve prejudice. When I first raised the issue of prejudice above it was by way of making a parallel reference to personal attack. However it is, I think more than just a subset of NPA and, for the mean time I have moved the prejudice content as parallel to and not a part of NPA. Pete has given this some thought and should be given opportunity to comment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A second move may have done the trick !? Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, moving the text does not allay my concern. The Arbcom finding was that a particular editor had engaged in prejudicial behavior in multiple places. That has been twisted to say that there cannot be a single discussion that some may "reasonably" perceive as promoting a racial or other stereotype. As it happens, I just commented at Talk:String Quartet No. 12 (Dvořák)#Old nickname in a discussion that could greatly expand to explore racial stereotypes. If a sensitive person encountered that, they may attempt to close it down as violating this proposed addition to the guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm against the use of prejudicial discourse aimed at making editors of a particular ethnicity, gender, faith or otherwise feel uncomfortable in discussion. I trust that we all are. I think that it is important to wave that flag here as much as in other places. --Pete (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the redirect for deletion; if we want to have a policy or guideline regarding prejudice it should be written using our existing procedures for creating and expanding these documents. The discussion is here; please discuss there. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Restoring other editors deleted texts as struck texts

An editor may add some level of argumentative, disruptive of derailing content; leave it for some days for it to take effect; let it rise in talk page positioning and away from the area where most current discussion is considered and then, once responses have been elicited, the editor may merely delete or refactor their offending content and walk away looking as sweet as roses. I think that there should be guideline to justify the restoring of other editors deleted texts as struck texts. In these situations I think it should also be good practice to notification on the offending editor's talk page regarding the resurrection of deleted texts. Following this time the offending editor may either leave text struck and perhaps add an explanation or they may unstrike the text so as to leave it in its original condition. In this case it would also be appropriate for other editors to leave brief comment that the text has been refactored and voluntarily restored. It is of importance that editors can stand by their words. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to follow that—are you proposing a change to the guideline? An editor "may" deface an article, but they should not, and inappropriate edits are reverted. No one owns edits, including edits which add a comment. Naturally editors are given plenty of latitude and are able to change their comments, even after others have replied. But they should not. People should be reasonable—if someone goes to a standard talk page where there is not much activity and posts a comment that is a bit wild, they can have second thoughts and come back later and delete the comment. This is not a bureaucracy where we tell editors that comments can never be deleted. However, on the talk page for a contentious topic, editors must collaborate. That means, they should not refactor comments once replies have been made, and they definitely should not remove them. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fine for an editor to alter their own comment after someone has replied to it (I do that often), with or without adding a new time stamp to it, as long as the alteration (which can be anything from fixing a typo or adding a clarification) does not take anyone's comment out of context (as in essentially misrepresenting what another person was replying to); this is per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments, which I think should have stronger emphasis on not taking an editor's reply out of context by changing or removing a comment. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Gregkaye's suggestion seems to be in response to this from the guidelines:

If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead.

So, if a user refactors their original comment which affects how subsequent replies may be interpreted, I would think it is reasonable for another editor to restore the original text (struck out) in order that the replies are read in the proper context. Alternatively, perhaps the relevant original text can be inserted in a quote box (e.g., {{talkquote}}) accompanying the reply. —sroc 💬 01:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Update to "When to condense pages"

I boldly updated the guidance on when to archive. In current practice, 10 threads is a lot to leave - as evidenced by the talk page archival settings on this talk page, as well as the default bot settings at WP:ARCHIVE (both of which use a value of 4). The thread count was last updated in 2010, following the discussion now archived here. Since the actual minimum threads best left is dependent on the nature of the talk page and its activity level, I think is is better to not be prescriptive here. VQuakr (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr I am very dubious about attempts to rapidly archive talk pages. Please particularly rethink your reference to stale discussions. A view as to whether an discussion is stale may be very much a matter of opinion. Resolved discussions can be closed and in many circumstances their contents may still provide relevant reference. Off topic and similar contents can be collapsed.

There are some pages that editors may not visit regularly and some discussions can be started because editors want to raise issues that they would like to be considered by others. There may be need to keep threads up for the reference of irregular visitors. At the other extreme there can be pages that have the same issue being raised again and again on independent occasion with a major reason for this happening because the previous raising of the topic has been archived. We should note that there are talk pages that function well despite having ~20-30 active threads. This typically gives an indication that the topic is of interest.

The text previously mentioned "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". It has been changed to: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has multiple resolved or stale discussions".

I think that provision of bench mark related to a proposed quantity of remaining threads is perfectly acceptable. Personally think that 10 is a more than reasonable number. If anything individual pages should be required to provide a reasoned justification for departure from a Wikipedia norm. In many cases there may be no justification for the rapid archival of content and I think that censorship issues may even come into play.

I also think that the Project page title should be changed from "When to condense pages" to "When to archive or refactor pages". The process of archival is that of removal not condensation.

I don't think that, considering previous disagreement on the topic of talk page archival, that you should have made changes in this way prior to the achievement of consensus. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Easy stuff first - condensing or refactoring as an alternative to archival is obsolete, by like eight years. Per your suggestion I updated the section title, and I also removed the obsolete text: [20]. That edit seems pretty straightforward, but of course feel free to boldly improve if it could be phrased better.

10 sections might be a reasonable guideline to tell people when to start archiving a page, but it is being misinterpreted as a recommended setting for the "minthreadstoarchive" setting on auto-archival bots. As I mentioned in my previous post, that is very high, much higher than most archival bots are set. Our guidelines should reflect actual practice. I dislike the use of a section count in the guideline because it gives a false sense of precision - the number of sections at which the talk page started to become less navigable depends on the complexity of each talk section. VQuakr (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

reverted

Reverted [21]. The first part is already in the guideline and the latter unnecessary (see WP:CREEP) NE Ent 02:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)