Help talk:Talk pages/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Policy status of this page?

See discussion at the talk page for talk page guidelines. —DragonHawk (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the policy status of this project page? Is it a guideline? Just an essay? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's actually a good question. This project page (Wikipedia:Talk page) was Help:Talk page not long ago. It was moved to the project namespace recently. I don't know why (my not knowing why is not meant to imply there wasn't a good reason). Right now, it's kind of part-way between a help page and a guideline (which may be why it got moved out of Help). For these and other reasons, I think it might be a canidate for mering with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines -- see discussion at the talk page for talk page guidelines for more on that. —DragonHawk (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are other information pages that aren't help pages - see, for example, Wikipedia:Embedded citations. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template for talk pages about talk

Hi all. I've noticed that a very few talk pages that themselves are about talk pages (this one, Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, etc.) tend to attract misplaced discussions. I'm thinking it might be good for everyone if these talk pages featured a prominent notice to help send people to the right place. I've got a concept draft at User:DragonHawk/Temp4. I'm somewhat concerned with striking a good balance between being prominent and WP:BITE. Thoughts? —DragonHawk (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I strongly recommend removing the symbol of the hand. I also suggest removing the second to last sentence - I think that it's easy to read that as patronizing. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 05:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this turned into {{metatalk}}. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

This page doesn't cover which talk page additions warrant the minor edit tag, and which do not. Granted, I suppose one can decide what is major and what is not, but it would be very helpful if we had some sort of definition for the record. Kennard2 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Would that be at Wikipedia:Minor edit? And since a minor edit can be on any type of page, I don't think Wikipedia:Talk page is the right place for such a definition. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 04:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Where to place one's comments

On talk pages, it's not clear whether one should type new comments above or below existing talk.

I presume that most everyone reading this will find that remark strange, because you are already familiar with the conventions in this area. However, I believe this ambiguity may be an impediment to meaningful participation by a number of users. Though I have been using and contributing to Wikipedia for at least a couple of years, I have never until now contributed to a Talk page, despite a desire to do so, for fearing of interfering by stepping into conversations in the wrong place.

Similarly, only after completing this entry and pressing the "Save page" button will I find out whether this new section appears above or below the existing sections. What will I find: that Talk pages are like blogs, with newest content appearing (and expected) at the top, or like chat-room text, which read in forward order, much like transcripts of spoken conversation?

I'm surprised that FAQ and how-to pages for Talk don't address this. Clearly I'm not the only one who feels it necessary, because the head of this very talk page bears an instruction to "Put new text under old text." Still, I have yet to find out whether this new section I'm typing will appear above "Should 'Talk page guidelines' and 'Talk page' merge?" or below "Question: This page doesn't cover which talk page additions warrant..."

I think the Talk FAQ should make clearer what will result when one adds a new topic, and I think all Talk pages should bear a bit of instruction on where to insert one's remarks.

fuper 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that, too. The automatic "add to a page" button at the top, "+", appends at the end. I've been doing that, too, but recently saw someone claim that top-inserting is the "right" way, and am now looking for anything like a guideline. One thing to do with existing talk pages is just to check the direction the signature dates run in, and stick with that. Jutta 19:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

TPG 2.2 covers this to some extent, with "Start new topics at the bottom of the page". It does not explicitly address adding comments within an existing topic section, though. —DragonHawk (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The indentation that is specified for follow-on comments makes it pretty clear, I think, that new comments within an existing section should go at the bottom. Otherwise you'd have:

        Third comment in section
    Second comment in section
First comment in section

Which I think would look exceedingly odd. In any case, it's not the norm here, and it's not the norm on any talk page I've ever seen. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Fuper that clearer instructions need to be provided regarding whether new talk page sections should be placed at the bottom or the top. Some people seem to add to the top and others to the bottom. Frequently people do not attach dates to their comments, so it makes it impossible to determine whether you are reading old comments or new ones. --GFLewis (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fuper, I am not even sure how to add a 'new section' to this talkpage, and have been looking around to find an answer. Would it happen to be "new section"? --Tikitag (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy of user talkpages

Recently, the user Qxz, who has theoretically left Wikipedia (recent edits suggest otherwise), was permitted to blank all comments on his/her talkpage, and the page was protected in this form. After I aked the admin responsible, the response I got was "respect", which makes perfect sense, but only within a certain philosophy, namely that talkpages are not a fundamentaly a public affair, but exist mainly for the benefit of the user in question. Conversely, if talkpages are meant for the general public, the page should instead have been locked in a form preserving all non-vandalism additions, with an explanatory note at the top.

So it appears that Wikipedia needs a philosophy of user talkpages to be expressed on this help page. What, if anything, should it be? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 01:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Very generally, the only reason someone would want to use a user talk page would be to communicate with that user. This doesn't seem to be relevant anymore, and Qxz seems adamant about not returning, and if he does, he can always email the protecting admin. If you wish to start a discussion about him, perhaps WP:AN(I) would be the place.

However, I think that it would be appropriate to put Qxz's talk archives at the top of the page. A similar thing was done with Essjay, for example, except with a link to page history. Qxz {{db-author}}'d everything except for those archives, after all. Gracenotes^T § 02:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Discussion" tab to access a "Talk" page

I'm used to it now, but it has always seemed to me to be rather unintuitive and unhelpful that the way to access a Talk page is via a tab labelled, not "Talk", but "Discussion". Can these tabs be renamed "Talk"? -- JackofOz 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "Talk" is a bad name; "Discussion" is better. So what really should be done is to change the "Talk" namespace to "Discussion". But that would be a huge change, and of course it's easier to type Talk:XXX than "Discussion:XXX. In short, this is one of those areas where experienced editors don't have any problems, and since there is no clearly superior solution, aren't inclined to worry about the status quo. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have changed from Discussion to Talk for me. Any way to change it back? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Forking an active discussion

I'm just curious if forking a talk page onto a separate sub-page is okay in the event an active discussion ends up getting too large? --Edward Sandstig 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's okay, but should be done rarely. There needs to be prominent notice (of course) and when the discussion is ended, it should be archived as if it were done on the main talk page (that is, archived to a main talk page archive), not to it's own archive, and the subpage probably should be retained with a brief note at the top that points to the talk archive. (If the subpage is deleted, then the record of who said what isn't visible to anyone but an administrator.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page/Forum page for talking about the topic

There are many Talk pages in which people give there opinion this is not what the page is for but it is something that seem to be very desired. The idea of a forum like page would be very useful talk pages offering review on movie pages for example could be something useful for picking a movie to see some times the page are just a spoilers and if there were reviews you could read the review without having the movie spoiled .To offten pages discussing politics or history are told from the POV of those who were in controll.Soldiers who served in Iraq offering stories about thier service would be very insightful all to often the little details are over looked. a simple story of one day in iraq telling what the berics were like how they ate this would never be in a normal encyclopedia but that's what is the benifit of wikipedia offering the most complete view . The incessant unceasing perpetual, continuous, nonstop, around/round-the-clock, uninterrupted, unbroken, unremitting, persistent, relentless, unrelenting, unrelieved, yalk over POV would be solved put the FACTS on the article and the OPINION on the talk/forum pag.If anyone likes my ideas and bad spellin and grammer and has Ideas on how to go about adding a forum tab to the top an eery page email me ==I am Nate Riley== 13:55, 19 June 2007  — [Unsigned comment added by 74.67.189.180 (talk • contribs).]

This type of proposal should be discussed elsewhere - for example, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and in fact has been, quite recently, so I won't rehash all the reasons why this is a bad idea. Please see WP:NOT - Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Also, while it's true that article talk pages are often misused as forums to comment on the subject of the article, that is clearly a minority of the talk page postings, and the solution is to gently remind editors about the purpose of talk pages - to improve the articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Using talk pages: link to one template?

The "Using talk pages" section says:

More recently, many Wikipedians have begun placing similar templates on their own talk pages with guidelines for posting messages and their reply policies.

But it doesn't give any specifics or starting point about the topic. Maybe it could mention:

[...], such as {{Usertalkback}} and similar.

It's a template that follows Wikipedia:Talk page templates guidelines and has a "See also" listing all similar templates.

There are options to express other forms of notifications, or fragmented discussions. Yes, I just made it ;-) — Komusou ^talk @ 20:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

well you realy cant unless you no their user name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auredope11 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we ever?

 Done

Can we ever talk freely without having to relate to the article? If you guys that read this know where then tell me atSylvan wu (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Response posted at user's talk page, copied here: Sorry, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. In general, discussion on Wikipedia is about how to improve articles, or about Wikipedia. You might try searching the Internet for a web forum devoted to your field of interest. 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Structure

Wouldn't it be helpful for a talk page to be structured with the same headings as its article page (with of course a general section somewhere)? I'm a pretty new editor, and it has been difficult and time-consuming to find discussion related to a particular section of an article. Searching for particular words doesn't cut it. Libcub (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy for user talk pages

Should there not be a specific policy page regarding user talk pages? The policy on user talk pages seems to be that as a starting point:

• The user can delete anything on their talk page without archiving or answering.

However, this is not clearly stated in written policy. In fact only two pages seems to specify policy:

1. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages states: "More latitude is extended for user talk pages. Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. For more information, see Wikipedia:User page."
2. Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings states: "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history."

Perhaps this could be cleared with a specific article dealing with user talk page policy? --Law Lord (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Found something that is also relevant:

3. Wikipedia:Harassment#User_space_harassment states: "A user page is for the person to provide some general information about themself and a user talk page is to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space."

Perhaps these could be combined to a policy page? --Law Lord (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're a bit premature in creating a new guideline without any consensus. I've reverted your change to Wikipedia:User talk page (it's again a redirect).

If you're absolutely dead set on creating a new page, make sure it's marked as a proposal, not as a formal guideline (no editor has the right to create a new guideline without community discussion first); use another name, not an existing redirect (you can change it later); and let other editors know via a village pump posting that you're making a proposal. -- John Broughton (♫♫) —Preceding comment was added at 22:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not a new guideline. Instead it was direct quite from 3 guidelines that all have community consensus. --Law Lord (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've marked Wikipedia:User talk page as a proposal and explained my reasoning at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:User talk page has been marked as a guideline. Darkspots (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"New messages" notification on User talk subpages?

Is it possible to receive the "You have new messages" on changes to subpages of user talk? xenocidic (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past six months or so, at WP:VPT, but I don't remember what was said. If you don't get any answer here in a week or so, I suggest that you post there. Or check the archives, though I don't think they go back very far. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cross-posted at VPT here. Thanks for the suggestion. xenocidic (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Yes, it would make the things much more simple and user friendly. --Rajanbuddy (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about other Talk pages I've seen

Why do I see stuff in discussions talking about things like minor grammatical errors in an article, and people asking if someone can correct those? Couldn't that person just have easily have corrected the mistakes themselves? Is that bad to automatically correct stuff we see wrong with articles, or are we supposed to discuss things first?Amnion (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Accessing a Talk page – Experience of a beginner

"To access a talk page look for a tab or link labelled discussion, or discuss this page. These tabs or links will be found either at the top of the page or on the left hand side (near edit this page). Users using the Classic skin will see "Discuss this page" instead."

What this paragraph means is:

When you want to write a comment about an article on the page, you have to use a Talk page.

To find a Talk page, you won't find one by looking for a label (or tab) labelled Talk page.

Instead, you have to look for a tab called, confusingly, Discussion.

The Discussion tab is on the top of the page that you are looking at, probably to the left of a tab called Edit this page (if there is one). Click on the Discussion tab.

The page that you see on the screen is called a skin, with a particular layout. There is one layout called a classic skin. On a classic skin layout, the tab for the Talk page is called Discuss this page. To open the Talk page, click on the Discuss this page tab.

This is just one paragraph, but typical of the difficulties of most of the explanations given.

Is there anywhere in Wikipedia that explains how to use it at the level of a novice?Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines needs to be moved up

The top of the article says it is a guideline, but I couldn't find the info I wanted til got to the See also section way at the bottom and the link to the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It would be helpful if it could be more up on top, something like "See also: etc." Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk)

This page in a nutshell

Added "This page in a nutshell". Iceblock (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just updated it a bit, think it's ok if not revert and I'll discuss here... LeeVJ (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4