Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Maybe this has come up before

If it has, please accept my apologies. :) In the Harold Washington article discussion page, a user chose to respond to questions presented in one section by creating a fairly opinionated new section. As it was actually an arbitrary break, and a continuation of the same discussion, I retitled the section to denote that it was such. the anon user (apparently possessing more than a few ids to work from, by their own admission) who added the arbitrary break was none too pleased with it, and has been reverting back the title. I have been directing the person to the main page for WP:TALK, and came to the article to discover why the anon user was being a prat and ignoring policy and guidelines. I don't see anything that says he cannot continue with the rancorous nonsense he's been engaging in. I have only the year or so of observing how admins and experienced editors handle arbitrary breaks and noting them as such to serve as my guide. I was thinking it was standard protocol.
Could someone offer some advice? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, in general, there's the page on dispute resolution. I would suggest following that guide. • Also, while I agree that the other editor was not really abiding by Wikipedia practices (WP:SOAPBOX, for example), I would say getting into a revert war over the title of the talk section was absolutely not appropriate. You clearly violated the three-revert rule there. "He did it too" doesn't excuse you. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Postscript: On re-reading, the above sounds a bit harsher than I really intend it to be. I do believe you were acting in good faith, to protect the neutrality of the wiki. I just wanted to emphasize that "responding in kind" is not a good practice. Sorry if I came on a bit strong there! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, it took me 30 minutes to actually figure out how to post a message.

Wow, Wikipedia - congratulations, You're now equivalent to the U.S. Government Beurocracy standards.

If only you could somehow insert 5-7 signup regulations, you could be equivalent to Russia's guidelines for developing nuclear missiles. You are so close!

Jesus, obviously I haven't visited the Internet in awhile, I'm astonished frankly. It only took me 2 hours to figure out how to respond to this bullshit page about cheese.

Ok... well, if I can even remember what the hell I came here to protest it is probably the fact that American cheese companies are no longer selling cheese. In fact, it's not even similar to cheese. If you buy individually packaged cheeses from a grocery store (Any grocery store), your getting crap. How do I know this? Because it doesn't taste like cheese, it doesn't look like cheese, it doesn't act like cheese, and it doesn't even come close to testing as cheese. Um, most likely, it's synthetic, and comes from plastic or derrivitaves - frankly it's fake. It's 10% cheese at most.

No, I'm not kidding - just go and buy a real piece of cheese from any cheese producer in the world, and then compare it to the individually wrapped pieces of plastic you can purchase in any grocery store in America, and you can see for yourself. It's fake... it's cardboard... plastic. It's basically the cheapest product any American Corporation can produce that tastes like cheese, that is humanly possible given the profit margins and the price of plastic.

If you don't live in America, please hit the back-arrow and continue studying cheese, sorry to bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey666 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page (permalink). —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
How exactly should cheese act? Jake the Editor Man (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

An addendum

I’d like to propose that an addendum be added to this guideline which would clarify that it covers the Reference Desks as well as traditional talk pages (like this one!). This appears necessary because of the extensive controversy on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk recently. My sugestion is that we simply add “or Reference Desks” in the second paragraph of the introduction to this guidline.

For instance it currently reads

“When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing.”

With the addendum this would read

“When writing on a talk page or Reference Desks, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing.”

What do you think? --S.dedalus (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting is that the same guidelines apply at a lot of places that aren't in a Talk: (or Wikipedia talk: or User talk:) namespace. It's widely understood that the same rules apply at the Ref Desks, the Help Desk, AfD subpages, the Admin Noticeboard (and WP:AN/I, and other subpages), and no doubt a lot of ther pages that I haven't thought of off the top of my head. Trying to list all (or a subset) of the pages on which these guidelines are followed leaves us open to wikilawyering: "The guideline doesn't list this page, so I can screw around with the comments here". Indeed, the guideline here applies just about everywhere one might leave a signed comment on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. However I think it would make sense to add some sort of statement to that effect. I believe this is necessary because at least one user has argued recently that this guideline does not in fact cover the reference desks. Perhaps something like what you said would be appropriate.
Furthermore this guideline also applies to most other page on Wikipedia that includes signed comment.
--S.dedalus (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
How about just, "Talk page guidelines generally apply to all discussions held on Wikipedia pages, even if the page is not labeled as a "Talk" page."? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 06:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a fairly sensible formulation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree; that seems inclusive. Anyone object to immediately adding this? --S.dedalus (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of warnings

If I recall, somewhere in the usage guidelines for {{uw-vand}} and its massive family of warning templates, it is indicated that these should not be removed from users' talk pages at least while they are still relevant, but this guideline doesn't really specify for this. Perhaps it should be noted in more detail.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If any of the usage guidelines say that, they're incorrect. Historically, we've found that edit warring to keep a vandalism (or other) warning on a user's talk page is more disruptive than letting them delete it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
And if an editor does delete such a warning, it is taken as an indication that they have seen it. Tyrenius (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah I forgot, someone thought it was a bright idea to have people dig through talk page histories when warning a vandal to see how many times they had been warned previously on the same day. Counter-productivity at work.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 02:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's not the most efficient system, but it has gained acceptance. It's a good idea to make a clear edit summary so it appears in the history. Tyrenius (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Inserting comments into others' posts

I thought I had seen some policy or guideline about this, but I can't find it now. Starting with January 7 posts at Talk:Galactus#No OHOTMU, one editor inserts his point-by-point rebuttals into another editor's posts, thereby separating the first editor's signature from the floating paragraphs that result, and making them look like unsigned posts. I asked him the second editor to consider refactoring in order not to break up other editors' posts, but he declined to.

Does anyone have further information about whether it's OK to break up other editors' posts to insert our comments within them? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus for prohibiting this, and while somewhat uncommon, it is a current practice. WP:TPG#Other's comments, sixth bullet point, "Interruptions", mentions it. Personally, I find it usually makes the conversation harder to follow, but that's just my opinion. One thing that may help is creating new sections with refactored text, to encourage more orderly discussion from that point on. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The practice of breaking up others' comments with your own replies can be confusing. (I have seen editors revert comments that break up their own). It is better to separate your own response into sections, and then summarize each point of the other editor you are replying to. The Talk:Galactus page that User:Tenebrae referred us to seems to be an example of excessively-wordy discussions. (The No OHOTMU section is so long it is in dire need of section breaks). EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know there isn't a policy that explicitly forbids this practice, but I concur that it's annoying, and it is implicitly discouraged. Arguably it constitutes monkeying about with another editor's signed comments. The insertion of text can interfere with the flow of the original author's writing, and can (sometimes inadvertently) alter the sense or interpretation of what the original author meant. As EdJohnston notes, it can also confuse subsequent readers as to who authored which remarks—signatures are no longer attached to each block of text. (I've occasionally seen an editor copy-paste the original author's signature to the end of each block of text to try to clarify authorship, but this carries with it the risk of further altering the sense of the text. In such cases, it looks like the original author wrote and signed several independent statements.)
Personally, I find it very sad that some people can't be bothered (or are unable) to read and understand comments more than a single paragraph in length, or are unwilling to acknowledge that an argument or discussion may require more than a paragraph to explain fully. Writers of an encyclopedia ought to be able to assemble a coherent rebuttal without resort to point-by-point insertions. For those who must make point-by-point responses, an acceptable solution is to make a copy of the original author's remarks and respond to the copy in a point-by-point manner. Copied text should be clearly attributed and set off through formatting (italics and/or indenting) to make clear what was said by whom. Ellipses may be used to omit material for conciseness, but only if extreme care is taken not to alter the sense of the copied passage.
On looking at the specific talk page discussion linked by Tenebrae, I have to say that it makes my eyes bleed. I can quite honestly say that I didn't read the entire discussion, and that I have no intention of doing so in the future. Someone needs to summarize the problems and use sections on the talk page to break the issues up into digestible chunks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Generally when I find this, I treat it as generally editing another person's comments. Adding information inside one particular comment is basically equivalent to (although probably not anywheres near as potentially malicious) altering the comment itself.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete inflammatory anonymous Talk Page comments?

In the instance of anon inflammatory comments, such as those at Talk:Strand Bookstore#The Real Strand, is it considered acceptable to remove those comments from the talk page? They are violations of multiple Wikipedia policies, including WP:Talk. Does such removal require a discussion board first? Thanks! --BizMgr (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You can revert or remove those types of comments by IPs or Users without discussion, since it violates the talk page guidelines.

This is the difference between Muslims and others, If Muslims will say any thing its come under violence and on the other hand any one can write any thing no copy right policy will apply. --Silver Edge (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird

I don't know where to ask this, so I'll ask it here. I came across a talk page Talk:Dusun languages, but the article (Dusun languages) doesn't seem to exist.Bless sins (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be serving any purpose. Deleted. Tyrenius (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

an error

Can someone with an account repair an error?? i was reading the article, when one wrongly spelled word flashed my eyes... "peoples". I hope that other users of this page will also find it inappropriate to be, and will change the spelling (i can't do it because i don't have an account) hope not to find more mistakes Polish reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.180.234 (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"peoples" doesn't occur on the page. You can edit without an account. Tyrenius (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If I correct other's spelling as an act of kindness, is that permissible? If I made an error in spelling I certainly wouldn't mind someone else fixing my spelling. Fixing spelling doesn't change the substance of a post. I can't understand why a poster would object to having his post's spelling corrected (not including a quote that contained a spelling error). --SMP0328. (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

About Muhammad PBUH Article in Wikipedia

Wikipedia said on every single page be calm be polite and be +ve but we are unable to understand how can be Muslims stay calm and polite b/c wikipdeia has dual standard of dealing with Muslims and others. Wikipedia gave full rights to the author of that article to play with Muslims and lets enjoy the reactions from Muslims. All people from other religions playing with Islam and Muslims and wikipedia is the best play ground for them where they can do any thing b/c wikipedia belongs to some specific people. We SURE nothing will happen but if any one from wikipedia are sincere with this website please remove those pictures which NOT belongs to Muhammad other wise just try to see around you who are playing with you and who are using you from the first day? You people and wikipedia are just like a TOY in the hand of some specific people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.136.127 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

An Error in the Declaration of Independence

Can someone fix this error? In the Declaration of Independence subheading "influences," the famous words "life, liberty, and property" are attributed to Thomas Paine. While he was a big influence, John Locke is responsible for those particular words. Thanks! I don't have an account. If you cross reference "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" it talks about John Locke as well.

By the way, there is some controversy over what I originally thought was a typo in the Declaration. check out "inalienable vs. unalienable" all you history geeks-

Anne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.164.16 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

mistake

Hello The engine used in the Autibianchi a112 abarth is not the same as used in the Fiat 127 sport. In the a112 abarth, abarth used the old OHV engine, the same engine used in the Fiat 600, 850, 127 and some uno's and Panda's

I am not sure what to do, but I hope the auther of the tekst reads this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soren ahrensbach (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

please remove the images from this page containing material related with MUHAMMAD (PBUH)

It's not about offensive or not. If you use your common sense then you will definitely know how much Muslims loves with their prophet. I am requested you to remove these images. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.128.30 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I've seen several incidents recently where users have rapidly archived or deleted entirely, discussion threads from their user talk page before involved parties have had an opportunity to respond. Assuming he/she is switched on enough to find it, the respondent must unarchive the thread and repost it to the talk page so he/she can respond, and then the cycle continues. Further, the user sometimes issues "instructions" of their own archiving policy which they then quote as the rationale and justification for the practice. The guideline appears to be silent on this matter but I believe it stifles discussion and is disruptive and needs to be prescribed. The practice hides discussions from wider observation and limits the ability of the community to effectively collaborate.

At the risk of instruction creep, I propose an addition to the guideline under Behavior that is unacceptable along the lines of

Do not hide or limit discussion: Ample time must always be given for involved and univolved parties to participate in discussions before threads are archived and/or removed from user or article talk pages. As a general rule, a minimum of three days after the last related posting needs to elapse before the thread is archived on a user talk page. More contentious discussions relating to user conduct should remain in place for at least a week after the last posting. The period for article talk page archiving will generally be much longer.

—Moondyne 04:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    • I am not happy with the way you are handling this matter, by linking to a discussion in WP:ANI, in which I, my editing, my character, my editing practices, and just about everything else about me is being maligned. This is not proper. In one place I am referred to as possibly an "asshole"; the entire WP:ANI violates WP:NPA; it is rife with false claims, false assumptions, false interpretations, and false accounts of my thoughts, feelings, intentions, and edits. It is not neutral; it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; it links selectively to editing differences without acknowledging the full contexts; it permits administrators who have not read all 18 pages of my archive or even the entire page that one administrator reverted from my archived talk page [18] to my current archive (violating WP:TPG herself multiple times) to make statements about me and my editing of Wikipedia and my archiving of my talk pages that are entirely false and not supported by either my own thoughts (as mischaracterized by others), my own feelings (as mischaracterized by others), or my own actions (as mischaracterized by others). You (collectively) have turned the WP:ANI into a witch hunt. [added a phrase; corr. --NYScholar (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)]
    • I archived my current talk page after I was informed that a block had been unblocked and that my archiving practice was in keeping with WP:TPG. The blocking administrator disagreed and created this WP:ANI, not about my editing ostensibly (at first), but about the unblocking of my account (lifting of the 24-hour [!] block by Sandstein). The WP:ANI then turned into attacks on my veracity, my credibility, my editing, my sincerity, my good faith, my value as an editor, and just about every other aspect of me. I object strenuously. I want this link in a project [talk] page to violations of WP:NPA on me to be removed. The "background" focusing on personal attacks made on me now throughout this WP:ANI by just about anyone who wishes to make them not appropriately linked here. There are many, many attacks now on me (as just described) that are linked via this link throughout the entire internet due to the way this is being handled. No one should be subjected to such abuse. I ask you to correct this egregious and outrageous violation of Wikipedia's own policy against such attacks on a user by other users. Please see: WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as well as WP:UP and this very project page. Thank you. You have all totally lost perspective on the fact that we who are engaged in editing Wikipedia are real-life people with real-life identities and real-life personal and professonal reputations, and that WP:BLP applies to us just as it does to any other subject who is a living person. For my responses: see my current and archived talk pages, the editing history, and my contributions link and user link: No Wikipedia user should be treated in this manner. I recognize that Sandstein is the administrator who unblocked my account, but the subsequent arguments about his action and what it has led to is doing me a horrendous disservice, and I think it needs to end now. I am not the subject of this project page, and the focus on me should be removed from it. -- NYScholar (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • For the Record: I have never archived my user talk page intending to "hide" anything from anybody; the whole purpose of archiving is to make the prior discussions accessible to all and everyone. By virtue of archiving, they remain unchanged. Current WP:TPG explicitly instruct newcomers or return visitors to a user talk page simply to start a new subject or to revive a previous discussion by posting a new section in the current talk page. Anyone and everyone is free to access archived talk pages. My talk archive box is entirely conspicuous, very easy to find, easy to click on, and not in any way, manner, or intention in the past or present "hidden" from anyone. The claims about my intentions in archiving comments on my current talk page (throughout the past 3 1/2 years) are false and based purely on speculations of others who have their own perspectives and own assumptions in mind (not mine). --NYScholar (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The emphasis should be on using the technology to hide or limit discussion or scrutiny of one's actions as the key factor, rather than simply on using the technology. I can think of occasions where I have archived threads in far less than three days to prevent drama, and I could see how a change could be misused by some types of people to keep discussion open indefinitely. That said I do agree with the need for something on this. Orderinchaos 09:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I endorse making a change in this vein to the guidelines but I agree with OIC and think it needs to be worded carefully. It also might be good to say that threads can be restored if discussion is still ongoing. Sarah 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Prophet Mohammed

I didn't realise the commotion that was being caused by pictures until i began to receive messages to sign a petition. To be honest as a muslim i really dont understand the mentality behind peoples thinking. If these pictures are offensive then don't access the site but let people make their own mind up. I just feel muslims over react, we should have the freedom to decide for ourselves. Ferduse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferduse (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing comments

Was this an acceptable edit - indenting the quoted comment to make it clearer that it was a quote and that I wasn't replying to it directly? It almost falls under "When a long comment has formatting errors", except that it wasn't long. --DocumentN (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Can I delete offensive content from posts? Look at this: an anonymous user had some profanity on his post. Is that an acceptable edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexius08 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say "absolutely not". A better response to something like that would be to first make the request for the deletion on the user's talk page, possibly accompanied by a template from WP:WARN#Behavior (unless you think Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars should apply).

See also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others.27 comments: "removing personal attacks...is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable". --DocumentN (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page appropriate for a available userbox message box?

Normally, one interested in a certain topic would need to search through several directories of userboxes to find the one they want, which may not always be up-to-date or easily searched. I came up with an idea that for userboxes that can be directly tied to a given topic, it may worthwhile to provide editors a list of such userboxes they can use for their user pages on the talk page of the article of interest. I created the template for this messagebox already which can be seen in example at User:Masem/test; it is collapsible, and by default collapsed. From the standpoint of userboxes, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this, but I've got a bit of concern that it may be pushing the boundaries of what the talk page is for, and thus I want to check here to see if anyone sees any major faults before I offer this template more openly. There's just a bit more meta-ness for userboxes (being tied with editors and not to the project directly) that I can see this being taken as inappropriate content to include on a talk page.

Anyone else have some insights on this? --MASEM 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

IP Blanking their talk page

There seems to be a difference of opinion on an IP blanking their own talk page. I did not find anything talking about in the archive of this policy page. Discussion posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP Blanking their talk page. Jeepday (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Article talk page banners

These don't seem to be covered at present. Following two very recent new projects who have placed their tags a)outside existing "nests" of Project banners, b) above FA etc banners, c) on the talk pages of related Projects (one did a), the other b) & c) by bot), I think something is needed. Policy should just say no to a) and c) above, I think. To address b), the typical "hierarchy" seems to be:

  • Talk page banner
  • FA or GA banner
  • FAC or GAR banner
  • BLP
  • Projects
  • others: DYK, audio, version 1.0, schools - in no particular order

- but these all vary a bit between articles, and I'm sure there are many not covered above. I don't think it should be prescriptive, & am thinking of proposing a "first division" with perhaps the first four above (plus others), which should be above the rest. Other's thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What would probably work best would be to propose changes to {{WikiProjectBanners}} and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to take into account the various templates under discussion. Unfortunately, and I do mean unfortunately, I am far from sure that your proposed order is one which would be agreed to by many/most editors. Also, in general, the BLP banner is integrated into the Biography banner, even though it appears separately, so in effect it might be counted as being a pointless differentiation between those two. There is however a real question regarding the multiplication of banners, particularly with the unchecked multiplication of WikiProjects, and I can see that there would be a point to such discussion. John Carter (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks - I will mention it on those pages, but if changes to them are needed, I don't know what they are. Here remains the best place to centralize discussion. I'm wholly flexible about the proposed order; I think there is going to a concensus for some order of priorities, whilst many others are unspecified. That is all I'm after. I take your point about the BLP. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, for what its worth, the GA/FA/GAR/FAR/DYK banners can all be integrated into the {{ArticleHistory}}, and probably should be. All the various 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0 banners can be integrated into a single template as well. My personal choices would potentially include allowing WikiProject banners for those projects which place the article in the highest relative importance or priority to perhaps be included separately, above the banner shell, as they are the ones most likely to be willing to address any complaints most quickly. That could still be a problem with articles like Martin Luther, which is High or Top importance to Christianity, Lutheranism, Biography, and Saints, though, so it's far from being a perfect idea. John Carter (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, more often than not importance ratings are shared, and in my experience you can't assume that, if different, they reflect who actually looks after a project, especially with national projects (sometimes they can reflect who spends time arguing on the talk page, certainly). Personally I spend most of my time on low importance articles (to my projects). For project priorities I was not thinking of anything more than a general principal of the most specific project first, and a suggestion that if editors from one project in practice do all the work that should be respected. The FA Book of Kells is instructive in this regard; it would be a super-top importance article to the Ireland project, but in fact all the work has always been done by Visual arts editors, all except me actually unattached to the VA project. This is not untypical. Thanks for the point about rolling-up. I think the Article History should be recommended at least, and the 0.5 etc one made policy. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The downside for requesting a policy for the 1.0 banners is that the "general" template was only created substantially after the various specific ones were, so they were placed first. I've gone through and replaced several myself individually later, but, things being what they are, I still haven't even come close to finishing them all. I'll try upon completion of the new project directory, though, which should, with luck, be later this week. John Carter (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really anticipating that people will go through changing existing pages, unless they themselves feel there is a problem. It is intended mainly as guidance for new additions to pages, and for settling some disagreements. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Some questions/suggestions:
  1. The "urgent" items you mentioned above are all banners that go on *article* pages, not *talk* pages, aren't they?
  2. I would think BLP would need to be fairly near the top. It's something like a legal thing, isn't it?
  3. If by "talk page banner" you mean {{talkheader}}, please be sure to specify that it's for controversial pages only. I see far too many talk pages that don't need that banner, and it takes up an awful lot of screen space for a non-controversial page.
  4. I think I've seen projects go above ratings (FAC, FAR, etc) more often than the other way around, but I'm not sure about that.
Just some thoughts. Overall, I'm totally in favor of a "suggested" order and/or format. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, 1) yes, removed, 2) Yes, it's in the proposed "top priority" group. If it needs to be right at the top, then fine, though my sense of typical practice is that it often isn't - see JC's point above too. 3) good point 4) my experience at least existing FA goes on top, GA more variable, and I think candidate/review ones should be in the top few, as urgentish "action" ones. I'm hoping for more useful comments like these ones before trying a draft & a village pump notice. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick comment: Often I think the banners being outside the nested banners is because a bot or AWB is used to tag. It's not intentional in my experience so much as an editor tagging several hundred pages in Cat:X today and checking to make sure they're really within scope is one thing but putting them in the nested banner is another. For a new project, or a reactivated one, to tag is a burden to begin with and until tagging is done the project has trouble finding enough interested editors to do the clean up of banners. I see it as a fairly minor issue, like someone swapping out pics and another coming back later to make sure the parameters are right so the pic isn't overlaying text. I've normally seen the project banners above the FA/GA banners, particularly the former ones, and I don't think we need to go changing a lot of those. Also, many of these banners (e.g. FA/GA) can be made |small=yes and aligned right, thereby moving up the TOC. I'm not sure this is really that important as long as the top of the page is neat and has some form of organization to it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly the point I was just going to make. Many banners of new projects are added by bots.↔NMajdan•talk 16:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but these bots should definitely be taking into account the existence of the shells and nest their additions accordingly. Speed is no excuse for sloppiness, right?
I think a guideline for banner order is a good idea; it may not have a huge impact, but it can only help keep pages a little neater/organized. And while the Project banners are usually up top, it does seem like FA/GA banners and even article history should go first when they can. As far as incorporating these other templates into the Shells, they were specifically designed for WP banners, with the idea that you really only need to see the Project name and not the rest of the banner for them to serve their purpose. Most of these other templates really should appear in their entirety. Perhaps some could be incorporated into the frame itself but stay expanded. — TAnthonyTalk 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Your last comment is actually more or less what I was thinking of. The BLP banner can already being incorporated into the usages and appear intact. I do think it might be easiest to have the shell templates be developed to place the appropriate banners in order on a given page. That would save the need of having to write an official policy, because all that would be required would be to include all the templates into the shell templage, which could be altered however is required. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That in itself is an interesting challenge for a few reasons, I think SatyrTN can comment there, LOL. — TAnthonyTalk 17:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I agree that bots can and should respect nesting. I'm not sure it wouldn't be a good idea to recommend that all new project banners go to the bottom of any project list, except where they are clearly the most specific. At the moment there seem to be no guidelines or recommendations at all; I think there should be, even if like so many other policy matters, their impact comes very slowly. RE JC's point, This is certainly a good idea, but by no means removes the need for an addition to this guideline, as there are other issues, and actually relatively few articles use shells. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
For the most part, bots already do. And I was, evidently poorly, just trying to indicate that the shells should be able to place the various kinds of templates in order. Both shell templates currently place the BLP template above the individual Project banners, and it would probably be comparatively easy to place the ArticleHistory and other non-project banners in a regular order as well. Those templates can be added to any page which has three or more banners by existing guidelines, and I can, unfortunately, honestly see a point in a year or two when virtually all articles have at least that many project banners on them. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And AFAIK, the shell templates all keep their respective things in order. For instance, if a talk page has the {{ArticleHistory}} and the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, all the banners you talked about are taken care of from #2-#5. What's left out is the TalkHeader and the DYK, WP1.0, audio, etc.
My bot, at least, knows how to add banners *to* a shell - I can't speak for all bots, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a problem with some bots not putting project templates in a good location (either by other project templates, or nested). If this bot issue were eliminiated, would there really be a problem? FAC, FLC, GAR, and PR banners are usually at the very top as temporary, urgent items, by the way. Gimmetrow 21:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this stuff is still done by hand, and additions to the guideline will at least start to eliminate the bot issue by making it clear what best practice is. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory advice regarding user talk pages

There is a contradiction between this:

A) On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded as uncivil.

(1.5 Editing comments
1.5.1 Others' comments)

and this:

B) Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user.

(Wikipedia:TPG#User_talk_pages)

Proposal: Reword the advice for clarity, delete B) to maintain consistency:

A) "It is generally considered not civil to remove any polite comments from other editors on your own talk page without stating a reason."

I would like to obtain a consensus for this change. What do other editors think? - Neparis (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some tightening could take place, however I wouldn't agree with removing the User talk pages section as I know that people do refer to that one, especially the comment about warnings. The two sections could be drafted to match more closely so there is no apparant contradiction. And some repeated text could be removed from the Others comments section. I'll take a look. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 10:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The guidelines and discussions on this that I've just looked at do indicate that it is considered up to the individual to remove comments from their talk page. It is preferred that people archive, though - as stuff is kept in history - that is not a requirement. It is up to the user when and which comments they remove. It shouldn't be written into a guideline that it is OK for people to take offence at someone doing legitimate housekeeping on their own talk page. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 11:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

removing comments from one's own user talk

While it should obviously remain allowed to remove any comments from one's own talk page as one sees fit, I believe the section should be amended with a note that removing comments that pose a good-faithed effort to communicate is often perceived as very uncivil. Dorftrottel (complain) 21:35, March 12, 2008

I personally am against allowing any deletion of comments from one's talk page. I can answer them, it ought to be enough. When posting a complaint in a user talk page, I want to know if others have had the same problem. It is too easy to delete all the negative stuff and leave only the positive stuff. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Splitting threads

Recently on a talk page, I moved a somewhat off-topic discussion in a thread I had started to a new thread, linking to the previous discussion and explaining why I had created a new thread for this. I did this both because I wanted to keep the thread I started on its original topic, and because the point raised was a very valid one and I thought it deserved its own thread. Basically, I was trying to emphasize both topics. The other user who had participated in said discussion strongly objected, pointed me to WP:TALK, and proceeded to delete his comments from the new thread, saying they had become meaningless out of context (even though I linked to the thread in which the discussion had started.) I looked here, and I don't see that type of move clearly addressed. Strictly speaking, I was not editing or deleting anything. Now, the general principle of moving others' comments for organizational purposes is addressed in "Centralized discussions" under Good practice, however, mine is not quite the type of situation described. I'm not asking for specific comment on my situation, but it seems like the general subject of splitting threads should be addressed here. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing table of contents

Hi, Talk:Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) is missing its Table of Contents. Is there somebody who can take a look at what is the problem and restore it? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TOC, the table of contents is automatically generated for pages with more than three sections. The page in question has exactly three. Flatscan (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing expired warnings

Could somebody add something about whether it is okay to remove the bot-instigated warnings when they no longer apply, particularly Fair Use warnings once (a) the image has been deleted from both WP and the article or (b) an appropriate fair-use rationale has been added? I assume it is okay, since people often remove the warnings that are on the top of the page. Come to think of it, I didn't see anything about those, either. Shouldn't that be there? Or did I miss it.

-- trlkly 12:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposing a page move

How do you propose a disputed page move? I mean so that people will vote on if it should be moved or not? Tvp119 (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not a vote, and I don't recommend using that method :-P Just ask people if they agree or not. If they agree, move it! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

editing others comments

I think the editing others comments section should make clear that it is legitimate to move a comment (without editing the content) to a new section at the bottom of the talk page when it is placed at the top of the page. I realize that you can find this in the existing text if you read for it, but I would add a bullet that read, "Moving new content to the bottom of a talk page and creating a section for it is acceptable."

I also know a few editors who quickly remove negative talk from their user talk page, or move it to the posting editors talk page. If there is a rule for this behavior, it should be made clear. If there isn't a rule, why isn't there? Pdbailey (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Because wikipedia doesn't have rules. If you'd like to describe acceptable behavior, go ahead.
Note that people may edit their user talk pages any way they like. On the other hand, removing negative comments isn't entirely wise (though no one will stop you if you do). --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

VMFA-242's station has been permenantly changed to MCAS Iwakuni. It has taken the place of VMFA-212. Vmfa-212 has gone into cadre status and will emerge as one of the first JSF squadrons in the USMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialedd1987 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_4&oldid=1142662794"