Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines: Difference between revisions
Reverted 1 edit by TVUNITEDNATIONS (talk). (TW) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
:I'd go with the guidance in the ''Personal talk page cleanup'' point on the project page, under ''Others comments''. Partial quote: "On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving." [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
:I'd go with the guidance in the ''Personal talk page cleanup'' point on the project page, under ''Others comments''. Partial quote: "On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving." [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
I am not sure how to comment correctly but I would like to put on record that this is the best general knowledge resource available on the internet and it should be properly appreciated. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.242.129.117|89.242.129.117]] ([[User talk:89.242.129.117|talk]]) 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-- |
I am not sure how to comment correctly but I would like to put on record that this is the best general knowledge resource available on the internet and it should be properly appreciated. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/89.242.129.117|89.242.129.117]] ([[User talk:89.242.129.117|talk]]) 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-- |
||
Jello Is The Most Awsome person In The World.....HaHaHaHaHaHaHa. |
Revision as of 17:33, 15 September 2011
This page is only for discussions about the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Wikipedia, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. | This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk page guidelines page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 4 months |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk page guidelines page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 4 months |
Anonymous user -> unregistered user
{{edit semi-protected}}
As per
I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, registered users are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.
Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.
In light of this, please change "registered and anonymous users" -> "registered and unregistered users". Thanks. 113.197.147.212 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Kansan (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes WP:HUMAN and I live the sadness in front of my work. (read http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.29.168.231&redirect=no) Good luck --70.29.168.231 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Great idea! I didn't even realize we had a violation on our hands in such a simple term! 96.48.109.20 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Just want to make sure this is 100% acceptable
Is it completely acceptable to re-arrange talk page discussions if the only thing I am doing is correcting indents of specific users and adding outdents? Occasionally, these get off leaving the discussion hard to follow. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't recommend you search out talk pages to refactor, and some users will use indentation to clearly show which post they are replying to, rather than automatically indenting more than the comment above. Outdents are usually added at near enough the right time anyway, I rarely come across a talk page with a tiny column of text at the right. Nevertheless, if the formatting of a thread has been really disrupted to the point where a reader cannot follow the discussion, by all means change it. I think as long as you follow stop if there is any objection (from WP:TPO) and aren't refactoring multiple talk pages, there will be no problems Jebus989✰ 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Taking the question at face value, the answer is no—please do not refactor comments. One reason is that refactoring will place an unnecessary burden on editors who are trying to follow the talk page (they have probably already read the original comments, and would now have to check what the refactoring had done, and waste time wonder why the refactoring was done, and whether it was accurate). Another reason is that refactoring can make it hard to work out precisely who-said-what in the future. In a contentious topic, it is sometimes necessary to provide diffs to show that a certain editor made a certain statement. Refactoring complicates that because someone viewing the diffs will wonder why the comment now displayed is different (even if only by an indent) from that shown in the diff. Again, time is wasted wondering why the comment was changed, and whether the changes have made some subtle change in meaning.
- It is ok to refactor a comment if not much time has elapsed since the comment was written (and if no one has replied to it yet—I might tweak someone's indent if I am the first person to reply). Also, refactoring can be helpful when rarely needed to clarify comments. Refactoring a contentious discussion by tweaking indents or whatever is almost always a bad idea because someone is sure to complain. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages states, "Good refactoring practices are an important part of maintaining a productive talk page," although other editors reserve the right to object on the grounds that any such changes are not "good". Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages specifically discusses modifying indents, "Correcting indentation levels" as a part of the section titled, "Non-contentious cleanup". Regarding indents, sometimes two editors both make a reply in one column and it helps to add a blank line between the two posts. No one will complain. Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I just took Unsintillating's advice and re-factored this section of the talk page just to show that this is much easier to read. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- But you have changed my meaning, because I did not reply to Johnuniq, I replied to you. Unscintillating (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I just took Unsintillating's advice and re-factored this section of the talk page just to show that this is much easier to read. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I didn't understand that about it. So this way is correct, the way I reorganized it? I used to be under the impression that every line was supposed to be indented so a reader could know when a new comment started. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- If by "correct" you mean that my meaning has been restored, yes. Not everyone uses Wikipedia:Indentation. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Indentation should be one step further than the comment you are responding to, which is not always the last comment made. For example, this comment and the one above from Unscintillating are both replies to the same comment from Ryan Vesey, so they both get the same level of indentation. If I wanted to reply to Ryan Vesey's previous comment (14:08, 21 May 2011) then I would use a lower level of indentation, the same as Unscintillating used at 16:00, 21 May 2011. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I didn't understand that about it. So this way is correct, the way I reorganized it? I used to be under the impression that every line was supposed to be indented so a reader could know when a new comment started. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:TPG being cited to protect vandalism from being removed
Twice I tried to delete the following vandalism from the talk page of the Rubyfruit Jungle article: [1]. Both times I was reverted and told that this guideline prohibited such deletion. The comment is a distasteful joke about vaginas left by an anonymous IP address as the first post to the talk page. It doesn't relate to any content of the article and is potentially offensive to editors who actually want to use the talk page for discussion. It is a textbook case of vandalism per WP:Vandalism: "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page". I don't understand how this guideline prohibits me from deleting obvious vandalism like this. If it does, the wording needs to be changed. Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand how anyone could object to you removing that. It says right here in the TPG "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." It seems like a clear case of vandalism to me.--Aronoel (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- The objector disagrees and has reverted removal thrice, claiming that the comment does not meet this guideline for removal and that removal is disruptive. Their objections can be found here in the following diffs: [2], [3], [4] (edit summary). --Danger (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can someone besides me please weigh in on the discussion? I'd rather not resort to edit warring over it. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- The objector disagrees and has reverted removal thrice, claiming that the comment does not meet this guideline for removal and that removal is disruptive. Their objections can be found here in the following diffs: [2], [3], [4] (edit summary). --Danger (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand how anyone could object to you removing that. It says right here in the TPG "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." It seems like a clear case of vandalism to me.--Aronoel (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Inserting replies in the middle of a comment
I recall that there used to be an admonition not to insert replies into the middle of a comment by another editor.
- :Point 1 by user:A
- ::Reply 1 by user:B, sig
- :Point 2 by user:A
- ::Reply 2 by user:B, sig
- :Point 3 by user:A, sig
In this example, user:B's signature is repeated throughout the commentary, but user:A's appears only at the end. The rationale for prohibiting was that it becomes muddled. However I don't see anything about it in this guidelines anymore, nor can I find any discussion in the archives. Was it moved or deleted, or am I misremembering? Will Beback talk 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that that example is muddled, but I don't think inserts are prohibited, when the two priorities are, we are building an encyclopedia, and "don't change the meaning". User B, or for that matter other editors, can do more by identifying where the inserts begin and end, such as with:
- :Point 1 by user:A
- ::[insert begins here]
- ::Reply 1 by user:B, sig
- ::[insert ends here]
- :Point 2 by user:A
- ::[insert begins here]
- ::Reply 2 by user:B, sig
- ::[insert ends here]
- :Point 3 by user:A, sig
- Also, User B could use Template:TopicBranch to minimize the insertion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Bold
I find bold comments on my personal talk page very distracting. Is it OK to change the font after a comment has been read or is this disruptive editing? An experienced editor is edit warring because I changed the font from bold to normal for his comment on my talk page, but I consider this a trivial change. QuentinUK (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'd go with the guidance in the Personal talk page cleanup point on the project page, under Others comments. Partial quote: "On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how to comment correctly but I would like to put on record that this is the best general knowledge resource available on the internet and it should be properly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.129.117 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)