Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Posting within another editor's post

Should an editor post within another editor's post? I think this is a poor if relatively rare practice. One can say that this is addressed by language such as "Never edit or move someone's comment", but why not explicitly state "Do not situate your post within another editor's post" or "Do not post within another editor's post"? Bus stop (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right; that's not the way we do things. It wouldn't seem proper to dig into another editor's post and insert replies in between paragraphs, sentences, or interjecting mid-sentence! How exactly do you want to work it into the text? Chrisrus (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Any proposal should link to Help:Using talk pages, which has a good section on indenting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As an example, see this insertion into a comment of mine; I did not feel affronted as it was signed and not a bad faith attempt to refactor my comment, but I did reformat it by indenting and enclosing in square brackets to make it more obvious that it was a departure from my comment, without removing it from its place interrupting my comment. However, this is perhaps an exceptional example and the practice should generally not be encouraged as it has great potential for confusion if editors need to reply to replies within comments Inception-style. —sroc 💬 17:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A brief paragraph under the paragraph reading "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request" is what I think might be a good way to communicate this. That next, brief paragraph could read: "Never post within another editor's post as this may interrupt the flow of their writing." I will go ahead and do this, if given the green light to do so. I can be reverted, of course, if their are objections. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Opposed; the principle at play is change its meaning so I'm opposed to replacing those words with a waffly "may interrupt flow". Alternatively,if you meant we should keep the existing text about "change its meaning" but add a sentence starting "NEVER", then I'm opposed because the first admits the possibility of appropriate insertions, but the new proposed sentence says the opposite ("never"), and that's contradictory NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy—there is a difference between moving someone else's post and posting within someone else's post. I'm not suggesting removing or changing language already existing in policy. I'm describing where I think would be a good place to insert an additional sentence. It might be easier if I just make the change, and then you or another editor can revert me or alter my language. Alternatively we can discuss it here, but it might be more cumbersome. Bus stop (talk)

You did not address the basis for my objection (i.e., your text would create a contradiction). How about this alternative proposal, which preserves existing text and adds new text that I have underlined for clarity

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

Do not add comments in the middle of another editor's post. Instead, add your remark at an appropriate point after the other editor's signature, using proper threading and indentation.

Can you please tell me what "contradiction" you feel I was adding? Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The existing text does not say "Never insert" it only says "don't change". Your text can be read as "Never insert, period". If one reads the first part as

• "if on a rare occasion you insert something in someone else's comment, make sure you don't change it"

and your text as

• "never ever insert anything whatsoever"

then that is a contradiction. You may not read the existing text that way, and you may not mean your proposed text that way, but they are susceptible to those contradictory interpretations. I think we're talking about the insertion of an everyday run-of-the-mill type of comment, so my alternative language is (A) written to try to describe those sorts of remarks and (B) echo the meaning and link (i.e., help page on how to WP:THREAD) as described in the "Keep the layout clear" section under "good practices" at the top of the TPG. What did you think of my alternative? Is it at least as good as your proposal? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see the "contradiction", but moving on, I can accept your wording except that I would end your second sentence after the word "signature". Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Stopping after "signature" is fine if our goal is to have lingo we can cite when complaining. However, if our goal is to help eds who don't already know about this basic convention, then they probably don't know about threading/indenting either. Why not reward the diligent new editor who reads this far with the link to Help:Using talk pages#Indentation? That way they know (A) to not add their comment in the middle of another's and (B) how to indent their comment so everyone knows who is replying to whom? Does that extra text hurt?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I felt that brevity resulted in a statement that was more emphatic, but your reasoning is sound. Include the last few words. Please make the edit. Should the first two words, "Do not", be bolded? It seems like a good idea to me. Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done with some additional edits to hopefully make it read easier for first timer readers. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You didn't put the links in for "using proper threading and indentation". Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Dope! Thanks. Fixed NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes for two reasons.

1. changing imperatives "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. " to "It is generally inappropriate to .... Change the meaning of someone else's comment" -- is are really big change in this guideline that needs much more discussion (a well advertised RfC) for such a large change.
2. I do not approve of a total ban on "newsgroup" interleaving in favour of the Lotus Notes style email conversations (although inverted to move the latest comment from the top to bottom). This is something that has been bubbling along for a long time and again if some editors want to insert this change it ought to be discussed and a consensus built for it in a well advertised RfC.

Such large changes ought not to be made by just four editors. -- PBS (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here:

1. Often people write write a long comment with points 1, 2, and 3 in separate paragraphs. Is it OK for me to insert a properly-indented and signed comment *between* points 1 and 2, responding only to point 1 ? I've seen well-meaning Wikipedia editors point at the WP:INTERSPERSE guideline on this page and claim it clearly says there is a total ban on interleaved conversations, because that "changes" the original long comment. I've seen other well-meaning Wikipedia editors (Talk:Passphrase) imply that this guideline page clearly says it's OK to do that, as long as I properly indent my comment so it is clear who wrote what, and I put my new comments between paragraphs in the original comment so I am "not changing" even a single sentence or paragraph in the original comment.

Honestly, I'm not seeing any clear direction on this page one way or another, so it's not at all clear. Am I even reading the same page as those editors?

2. Even if we come to a consensus that one should always put comments to an existing section at the bottom of the section, as suggested by Help:Wikipedia: The _Missing Manual/Collaborating with other editors/Communicating with your fellow editors#Adding a comment to an existing section, inevitably some well-meaning Wikipedia editors who have not yet read that guideline will post a comment *between* points 1 and 2 of some long comment I or someone else has written. What should my response be? Should we add this situation to the list in the "Fixing layout errors" section of this guideline, recommending that I move that person's comments to the bottom of the section, where they belong? Should this guideline recommend I hit the revert button, in effect deleting everything that well-meaning editor just said, and put a link to that guideline in the edit summary? Should this guideline recommend that I post to that editor's talk page, with a link to this guideline and a suggestion that they self-revert and re-add those comments to the bottom of the section where they belong? --DavidCary (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

With regards to the above comment by DavidCary, effectively concerning the interleaving posting style, I would place emphasis on the necessity of identification at each inserted phrase. Indentation is obviously also necessary, but the source of the interspersed comment must be made clear in all instances, without in any way materially changing the original content. Further, whenever this method needn't be employed, I would argue that for clarity/readability's sake: it shouldn't.

Notwithstanding, the major Style Guide changes that PBS makes reference to above are unquestionably within the province of large-scale consensus, via a major RfC. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. For a bit of support in current Policy for my statement re. signatures/identification, I would cite the text of WP:SIGNHERE, which is fairly unambiguous. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the WP:SIGNHERE is an example of exactly the sort of ambiguity I'm trying to point out: we all agree that "posts made to ... article talk pages ... must be signed."

However, quite often someone makes a post to an article talk page without a signature.

What should I do when I see that happen? The WP:SIGNHERE guideline itself says nothing.

Another guideline on the same page, the WP:UNSIGNED guideline, has some tips on what I should do -- rather than treat the "bad" post without a signature exactly the same as vandalism and simply revert, the WP:UNSIGNED guideline recommends something else (although I usually let User:SineBot do that work for me).

We seem to have consensus that interspersed edits should be avoided, and perhaps we could promote that to a guideline analogous to WP:SIGNHERE. But I think we need more discussion on what to do when (inevitably) well-meaning editors intersperse their point-by-point comments. Three options: Should I treat those "bad" posts exactly the same as vandalism and simply revert? Or should I fix-up those posts, more analogous to the WP:UNSIGNED guideline? Or should we maybe construct a 'bot to automatically fix up such posts? --DavidCary (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever is done should make it clear that there are many cases where interleaving is acceptable and often expected. See further down this page for some relevant discussion and a recent edit to the guideline to this effect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere there should be advice that talk page comments on several different topics should be signed at the end of each topic, so that responses can be put in the proper places without attribution being confused. Zero^talk 08:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

WP:TALKNEW Placement of New Sections in Dormant Policy Discussions

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 recently began a discussion with another editor with regards to the placement of new Talk Page sections for the WP Policies & Guidelines WP:NCCL, which had been dormant until my recent proposal since June of 2014. I will summarize my initial position, in quotation, below:

The idea of new discussions (on unique areas of the WP guidelines) being best found on the bottom of the Talk Page appears contradictory to the intention of making them easily found. It seems to me that especially where Talk Page activity that effects WP Policies & Guidelines both covers a unique knowledge area and has been long-dormant, new issues should be presented at the forefront of the Page.

Proposal is therefore that we give consideration to including an exception to the current prescriptions of WP:TALKNEW, that distinctive new Sections added to the Talk Pages of articles discussing WP Policies & Guidelines that have been inactive beyond a reasonable period of time should be raised to the top of the said Page. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

N.B.: The above reference to NCCL provides a good example of situations wherein several lengthy yet stagnant discussions (which have not been removed by bots) have "buried" the new Section. A link to the aforementioned Talk Page Section is available here. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

How about instead of changing the talk page guidelines, archive some of the long stagnant sections. -- GB fan 21:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea (especially because this really only needs to be brought to use in certain "odd" situations like WP:NCCL Talk), but my worry is that it may run afoul with those patrolling for adherence to WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE, considering many of these discussions often trail-off without definitive resolution. Anybody have thoughts on this? --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Automated archival is your friend. I have set it up for that page. The parameters I have used, means it will always leave at least 5 sections on the talk page, but archive any older ones that have not had any additional comments for 100 days. -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• No. (1) Having different standards for different situations would cause confusion. (2) Changing the guideline would not automatically cause everyone to change doing what is long-established practice, and some people doing it one way, some another would cause further confusion. (3) Suggesting that the practice of putting new content at the top is "contradictory to the intention of making them easily found" is based on the assumption that everybody looks first at the top. I look first at the bottom, because I know that is where new content usually is, and I bet many other editors so the same. (4) If we start having new content sometimes in one place and sometimes in another, it will make it much more likely that editors will miss it, because it will not be obvious where to look for new content. It is much more helpful to know that there is one place to look for new content. (5) Oh, great, we have one more opportunity for pointless and time-wasting Wikilawyering, as different editors have different views as to whether or not a particular post qualifies under the circumstances where an exception should be made and new content should go at the top! No thank you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• No.. In 2006, an idea similar to this was briefly considered and rejected at WT:MILHIST precisely because most editors expect to find new sections at the bottom of a talk page (see section Talk page layout and the section immediately after it). Apart from custom another of the argument against placing them anywhere but the bottom is the [new section] tab on talk pages creates new sections at the bottom. -- PBS (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment. @JamesBWatson and PBS: While JamesBWatson confuses my meaning on his point No. (3); I am willing to accede to the fact that you both make good arguments against the proposal. What I'm wondering is what you think is appropriate for cases like WP:NCCL, where the discussion is stagnant? I don't want to pursue the opposite evil (i.e. wide-scale RFCs for each and every issue), whereas I also don't want fossilized threads hindering the natural visibility of new discussion topics... Do we need more bot activity here? Something else? I'm interested in your thoughts. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• No. Aside from the potential confusion, I doubt it would have the desired effect. If a new discussion isn't getting much attention it's probably either a low traffic page and/or people just aren't interested in jumping in on that discussion. If a new topic warrants a larger discussion and people aren't showing up, an RfC can be used and/or you can link to it on relevant project pages. For example posting a link at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion would probably draw people interested and knowledgeable if a Naming_conventions_(clergy) topic needs more attention. If the topic is Proper Form in the Titling of Roman Catholic Cardinals, you could link it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism.

And as noted above, pages can be de-cluttered by archiving stale sections of little current value. Worst case, someone complains and de-archives it. Alsee (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• No. Based on the presupposition people go to the top to look for new material. The Wikiwide standard is the bottom and there is no good reason to make an exception for particular talk pages. Any potential benefit is far outweighed by the definite confusion and disruption it would cause. Jbh^Talk 01:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• No. Summoned by bot. Reasons have more-or-less been covered by others. The confusion that would be caused by inconsistency across the project outweighs any potential benefit. ~ Rob^Talk 00:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
• No. - This would seem more likely to increase confusion & misunderstanding than to aid the resolution of threads which have become dormant. There is benefit to having one system, even if it is sub-optimal in some areas. Support the methods articulated by Alsee in preference. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:39, 6 September 2015 (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.

Indicating redacted material

In the guidelines, we offer two methods of indicating redacted text -

• Mark deleted text with <s>...</s>, or <del>...</del>, which render in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., wrong text).
• Mark inserted text with <u>...</u>, or <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., corrected text).

Given that some editors sometimes use underlining to emphasise parts of their text on Talk pages, to avoid confusion, should we reconsider using underlining to indicate redacted text?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Underline = insert new text. It's standard procedure. Humans seem able to misunderstand anything, and there is nothing that can be done to eliminate that possibility. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Agree with Johnuniq here. For many changes or edits to comments it is important that we have a method to identify what changed; as such may influence our understanding of any following intermediate comments by others. This is a standard procedure that editors should be encouraged to follow; even if that means they do not use underline for emphasis. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This one of those "standards" that most people don't know. Zero^talk 09:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zero, While I think that your assessment is quite likely accurate (and also consider that many editors will not insert text but simply add a new comment), I do think that we should still have a method of indicating inserted text; and that we should document that method - such that editors who are not yet aware, can be easily made aware. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Underline for wanting to show new text that has been specially put in and underline for emphasis mean very similar things - the person wants that to show. There's no need to try and devise something new. In accordance with the general principle that in general guidelines should document best practices rather than try and dictate them I think what is there is right. Is anyone confused in some way that matters about the underline I just stuck in? Dmcq (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Added a note about excluding other users

I have boldly added a note about users not being able to post notices indicating that users can't exclude other users based on one of their unrelated qualities (e.g. "admins can't post here" and the like). Prior to this, this has been used by at least one user as a loophole to allow them to do so: Special:Diff/677913514. Gparyani (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Gparyani, I reverted per WP:UP#OWN and WP:OWNTALK. Specifically, I stated, "I disagree since this can be taken to mean one's own talk page. There is more leeway with editors' own talk pages, and editors should not have to put up with unwelcomed individuals at their talk pages, except for certain cases." If your proposed addition is reworded (for example, pointing out the right of WP:Administrators to post to a person's talk page because of behavioral/sanction-worthy issues), I could support it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The addition was entirely too broad. Editors are excluded from certain talk pages via topic or interaction bans. An entire class of editors is excluded from Talk:Gamergate controversy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

OWNTALK

There's wording in OWNTALK: "There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags (see User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details)." that's confusing. Unless I'm mistaken, the removal of speedy deletion tags refers to WP:SPEEDY and doesn't apply a pro forma notice on a user's talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think ... based reviewing Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/Archive_10#Deletion_of_user_talk_pages the circumstances would be something like WP:G10 or WP:G12 csd of the user's talk page when there is no other history to keep. (But I agree it's confusing as written.) NE Ent 02:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. WP:BLANKING and the section of this are talking about removing {{Db}}, not a user removing the {{db-reason-notice}} from their talk pages. The way this is written it almost intones a user can't delete the "delete reason" notice, which is nonsense. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

where can i report improper closure of discussion

thanks.. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)