Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Template:Reflist-talk

I was going to boldly add a paragraph to the page, but because of the warning at the top—

You are editing a page that documents an English Wikipedia guideline. While you may be bold in making minor changes to this page, consider discussing any substantive changes first on the page's talk page.

— I'm posting it here first for discussion:

References on talk pages

If your comment includes references that will create footnotes, use Template:Reflist-talk at the end of your comment section. This will force your references to appear in a box at the end of the section, rather than at the foot of the page as they would in an article. Like this:

References

Comments, please! {{Ping}} me.--Thnidu (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, this page is complicated enough as it is. Refs on talk pages are fairly rare (usually they're there by accident – copied in with some other text, and of no importance at all) and it's not the end of the world if they get rendered at the end of the page. Some other more experienced editor might come along and add {talkref}, or not, and either way it's not a big deal. I'd skip it, and let it be something people learn by example. EEng 19:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• @Thnidu: I agree with the proposal. I see this about once a month and while not necessary, I'd like to see the practice formalized. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• EEng (Ye gods, I just wasted at least half an hour in your "museums". Fun but dangerous!) Um... As I was saying... Yes, I still think it's a good idea. It can save a lot of scrolling (→ time → spoons), and make it a lot easier to compare the references with the text. I'mma put it in. --Thnidu (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not saying it's not useful to have it where it applies. I'm saying that I wonder if it's worth adding to the crushing weight of detail on this page, which is one of the first we recommend newbies absorb. Anyone can come behind an initial post and add {reftalk} when they recognize that it would help so I'm saying let a more experienced comes-along-later editor do it -- no harm done by the delay -- instead of adding one more thing a newbie thinks he has to try to remember. EEng 22:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  EEng is correct. It would be nice if every editor could be given a pill that allowed them to manage talk pages, but that's not going to happen, and they certainly will not read this guideline before dumping refs in their comments. Learn-by-example is best for {{reflist-talk}} and the guideline should focus on basics which are much more important. Too much detail makes it impossible to see essentials. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  You know, I think there's a place for an essay WP:LEARNBYEXAMPLE on erring on the side of relying on learn-by-example instead of stuffing every detail into long intro pages no one can possibly read. The Help: space is a trainwreck because its builders (who, I gather, simply dropped dead of exhaustion one day) couldn't decide whether to make it a set of for-dummies quick-start pages, or a full regurgitation of every consideration and feature, drawn out with numbing examples for each and every point. Favorite examples: WP:How_to_make_dashes, Help:Footnotes, and (my all-time favorite) WP:Picture tutorial. That word tutorial in there was someone's idea of a joke. (Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax is even more indigestible, but at least it doesn't advertise itself as a tutorial or help page.) EEng 23:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, I momentarily blocked on the absolutely, positively, worst help page every: Help:Table.

  @EEng: I just saw that you'd deleted my paragraph from the page. I wish you had at least mentioned that action in this discussion. --Thnidu (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I would have if there was anything that needed saying beyond what's in my edit summary. You're expected to keep pages you care about on your watchlist. EEng 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• I wonder if there might be a technical solution to this. It is an annoyance, especially when trying to manually archive, collapse or remove something, and you can't find where those refs at the bottom belong. On a crowded talk page in need of archiving, it can be quite difficult to find which section to stick the template in after the fact, so it would be nice if it could be either automatically generated in the first place or added by bot soon after. Beyond the scope of this talk page, I guess, but I thought I'd see if anyone thinks it's feasible before finding a place to request it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  I see no hope of some automated solution. But I really feel this is a search for a solution which, when found, will then be in search of a problem. Sure, it's cleaner if each talk thread ends with its own refs, but if they refs end up at the bottom of the page, so what? They're still there, and when a thread is archived the refs move properly with the thread itself to the archive page, appearing at the bottom there. Sometimes the refs are in the thread accidentally anyway e.g. got copied in as part of some text under discussion, and no one cares where they appear or indeed realizes they're even there. If it really matters that the refs be in the thread proper, someone will have the sense to add {talkref}. Otherwise, no big deal. EEng 05:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Rivertorch: It's very easy to work out which sections to add the {{reflist-talk}} to. Assuming that you are starting with all the refs displayed automatically at the bottom of the page:

  1. Have a look at the first of those refs; it will have one or more backlinks close to the start of the line (if there is one backlink, it will be a caret "^"; if there are two or more, they will be lowercase letters).
  2. Click the first of those backlinks, this will take you to some point further up the page, almost certainly in one section or another.
  3. Edit that section, add {{reflist-talk}} to the bottom, and save.
  4. Return to the bottom of the page, check to see if there are any remaining automatically-displayed refs; if there are, return to step 1.

  and you're done. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's quick and simple! Another approach would be to just not worry about on exactly what part of the page the refs display. EEng 12:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64. That's more or less what I already do, and it almost always works, but a while back I encountered a talk page where all bets seemed to be off. I don't remember exactly what I eventually found the problem was (hatted sections? an improperly closed tag, maybe?), but it just stuck in my mind and when I saw this thread it occurred to me that it might be feasible to address the problem through automated means. @EEng, I appreciate that you consider it no big deal. I certainly don't think it's a big problem, but I also think it's often worthwhile to at least consider addressing minor issues that make the interface more confusing than it needs to be, especially for new users. I'm no perfectionist, but I also dislike the "good enough" approach when something might be easily improved. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree about considering, and that's what we're doing now, but to me the answer is that it's not an improvement to add these instructions to this page. A big problem in editor retention is the learning curve, and by adding this we've made that curve a little steeper in order to get a slight cosmetic adjustment to 1 in 1000 talk pages – maybe (i.e. if this new instruction is remembered and heeded by newbies). And in many cases someone else will make the slight adjustment anyway. EEng 18:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(At ten levels of indentation the text is virtually unreadable on a smartphone.)

@Chris troutman, Johnuniq, Redrose64, Rivertorch, and EEng:
Clearly I left out a crucial point in my proposal: Using {{Reflist-talk}} on one's own comment requires making sure that all previous comments with references have it as well. And that does complicate it, so it would be important to note that this is an option that you can use, but you don't have to.--Thnidu (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Great – yet more complication to an instruction that solves a tiny use case in the first place. Until five years ago {reflist-talk} didn't even exist, and we got along fine. It was invented for a the very few times where, for some special reason, it really clarified things to emit the refs accumulated to a certain point (usually how-to pages, MOS pages, etc., on which the mechanics of refs are being themselves explained). You mean well, but this whole thing is a bad use of novice editors' very limited ability to absorb our already complicated rules and guidelines. I suggest we remove it completely. EEng 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Honest question: would you say this guideline should be primarily for newbs? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

First and foremost it's a reference for OK and not-OK behavior, for when arguments flair up. To the extent possible, it should present that in a way calculated to allow newbies to absorb it readily. That's a hard balance to strike, and way down on the list is technically complicated oh-and-in-this-rare-case-also-do-this minutiae. I'll say it again – leave this for learn-by-example. EEng 00:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The practice of putting citations in a talk page comment doesn't happen all that often on a single talk page, so I understand EEng's argument. I often insert this template and I feel that including it in the guideline moves my practice of adding the template beyond being my personal preference in not having citations ride the bottom of the page, but makes it a general norm which is why I support the inclusion. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have never seen an argument about whether reflist-talk should be included in a talk page section—it's part of referencing and does not need a "this is a good idea" guideline. The text is out of place here because WP:TPG is a behavioral guideline (don't use a talk page to express personal opinions on a subject or editor). If a reflist how-to belongs anywhere, it is at Help:Using talk pages, which is WP:TP. Further, adding how-to information anywhere will not help the problem of editors pasting refs into talk pages because the editors (often newbies) will not see it. They will only learn how to fix the issue when they see someone else add the correct reflist. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Great point about behavioral guideline vs. tutorial/help page. Talking about {reflist-talk} here makes it sound like you could get dragged to ANI for not doing it. I think the added text [1] needs to be removed as failing to have gained consensus. EEng 00:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• This notion that this is not a common problem is misguided. I think a help page updates would help....but agree no need for this How-to info in guidelines .....add disputed text to [[[Help:Using talk pages]] ....Wikipedia:Talk page layout.....Help:Introduction to talk pages/3.--Moxy (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've removed it here -- and look carefully [2] -- there was already text on the page about {reflist-talk}! EEng 17:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed with the proposal. This is simple, but people don't do it, and its lack often causes confusing messes. I disagree with the idea that refs on talk pages are rare and usually accidental; in the areas I edit, the opposite is true.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  Changed my mind after looking over the page again, and I now agree with the "let people learn by example" idea.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleting bot notices

After chasing one link to another to find an answer, the question can only be asked here:

Q. Can bot notices (such as the InternetArchiveBot) be deleted from Talk pages? If they cannot be deleted ... can they be collapsed to use less page space?

Q. If there is a guideline somewhere about deleting bot notices from talk pages ... where is it because I didn't see it in WP:GTD, WP:NOTIFS, and WP:BOTPOL.

Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there an example of a talk page which is suffering due to bot notices? I'm not sure what the problem is. I do not know of any bot notices which are unhelpful, so they should be visible for easy review. The problem with deleting them is that other editors will see that someone has removed text, and they may feel obligated to check that the removal was desirable. It's much less hassle for everyone if there are no deletions unless necessary, such as with spam. That has the benefit of not lighting up watchlists with unnecessary edits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages don't "suffer". But they can become cluttered. What I understand by your answer is that when IABot edits have been checked, the notice needs to remain on the Talk page. If that's the case, fine.

Now ... say there are two or three IABot notices, one after the other: can they be folded within a collapse box? Pyxis Solitary talk 06:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No authoritative answer is possible I'm afraid because as you say, there is no guideline. My answer would be that if someone is monitoring a particular topic and making substantive edits to the articles concerned, they might feel that some bot notices were intrusive and collapse or even delete them. However, editors who merely notice such bot posts should leave them alone mainly because an edit on a talk page can cause a dozen editors to feel they check what happened. That particularly applies for contentious topics where people might feel they need to inspect the talk history and check the diff of the removal to see that no other change occurred, and whether they agree with the removal. In short, I leave IABot notices but I do whatever it says about closing its request. Keeping the notice might also be a helpful record for anyone in the future who wonders why a certain edit occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We need a guideline. I may have voiced the question but I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking about it. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

My solution is to archive them after they start to pile up. We do have talk page archives for a reason, and that reason is now-useless talk page items that people don't need to see unless they have a reason to dig up "old business" on the talk page. :-) Outright deleting them as if spam or personal attacks isn't helpful for anyone.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd thought about archiving them but didn't want to flip any norm on its head. Thank you for making the suggestion. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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

---

@Pyxis Solitary: I've actually rethought this in tiny part; the archive-url notices of InternetArchiveBot in particular are actually completely useless, since what the bot does to talk pages is redundantly tell us that it added an archive-url to a citation, which anyone watching the page already saw on their watchlist. These notices serve no legit purpose on article talk pages, and don't need to be archived. I've filed a Phabricator request to have that bot in particular stop doing this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC), corrected missing word 22:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree:

1. On the talk page the bot suggests that a human editor checks the bot operation:
   1. Not all of these eligible human editors need to have the page on their watchlist;
   2. If someone else edits the article on an unrelated matter, the mainspace bot edit is no longer directly visible in the watchlist;
2. The bot suggests to notify in the template on the talk page, after checking:
   1. If the parameter in the template is changed to checked, other editors know they no longer need to check, unless they want to double-check, or unless archivebot's operation was marked as unsuccessful (and the first editor who checked doesn't know what to do next to get it sorted): in either case best to keep the message on the talk page, at least until the next round of talk page archiving (if any: a talk page of a largely unproblematic article may have too little content to archive, so, in that case, the bot's communications won't bother anyone either)
   2. Sometimes a website is off-line accidentally when the archivebot does its thing, or, more often, the website is restructured or moved to another domain, in which case the "archive link" is not the best solution, although the first editor checking may have duly confirmed archivebot's operation as successful. So best to leave the archivebot's message on the talk page, even after someone has marked it as successful: someone else may come along who figured out where to find the page that was linked from Wikipedia (without needing to go to the Web Archive). In such cases the bot didn't make an error, but a better solution may turn up after some time.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to revise; yes, IAB does leave some useful notices, including about problems to fix, and about changes it made that may need human examination. "I added an archive-url" is not among these, and its instructions that we need to go look at what it did are basically wrong (especially since anyone watching the page will have already seen it; the notice that "I did X" where "X" is trivial, routine, and virtually unbreakable is equivalent to the watchlist notice of the edit itself, and the talk edit makes another watchlist hit, so that's three notifications about an edit that will never be dangerous. "Not the best solution" is some rare, odd case isn't sufficient. The cite still works, so WP:V remains satisfied. That objection only applies, anyway, to a case where the bot added an archive-url AND a dead-url=yes. We have bot adding archive-urls to non-dead URLs on purpose to prevent link rot. Not just harmless but desirable; and also something we don't need talk page spam about. This whole "notify upon archive-url" grossly violates the spirit if not the exact letter of WP:COSMETICBOT. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree about the reasoning that interaction should never exceed what policy describes as a strict minimum. I think that the messages the bot leaves on the article talk pages are useful. They could be a bit shorter. Maybe. But in general, I don't see the problem: I'd rather have them than not. In my view they may be even useful after having lingered some time on the talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thread opened about this at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Run_around.2C_re:_InternetArchiveBot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:37, 4 October 2017 (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.

This page mentioned at ANI

This page has been mentioned in the title of a section at ANI.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#EEng's editing at WT:TPG - links help as they would've above when mentioning sections of talk page archives. Since you are already looking at the page(s) in question it's easy and polite. FYI. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a talk page, not a page on which to name names of editors involved in discussion at ANI.  Editors can easily enough find the discussion with the information I gave if they choose, without the information being found in a page search.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Much like above when you vaguely mentioned talk page archives, it is possible to find the information, but it is easier if you are specific. Why should someone have to spend the time looking without even knowing what it's about when they could easily be linked there? I don't know about you but I prefer clicking once to typing, manually searching, scrolling, etc. I think vague references waste people's time. —DIYeditor (talk)

• The puzzle is why it is a priority to you to report here and include in a Wikipedia page search the names of editors in a discussion at ANI.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Note that due to quiet edits, see the edit history for the entire sequence of edits.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Huh??? And you really, really, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY need to stop trying to control what and how others post [3][4]. EEng 05:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Personally I'm thrilled for people to know that Unscintillating's opened a thread about me. I fear no scrutiny. EEng 02:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to be as blunt as I can here. Unscintillating, you are wrong, drop the stick. Should you continue, it will not end well for you. --Tarage (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Also agreed with the original objection that posting ANI-related stuff on a page like this is not cool; it smacks of grudge-matching and canvassing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Conduct here in general

Am I the only one who thinks it ironic that this talk page, which is the talk page on the behavioural guideline concerning talk pages, is such a good example of poor behaviour on a talk page?

(And yes, I'm painfully aware that I stand accused of being one of the culprits.)

The goal of all talk pages is to arrive at consensus decisions. But to do that we need to listen. That is, really listen and try to understand not just the motivations but also the merits of what others are saying.

Have a look at the essay at wp:bullying. The string at #Guidance against interleaving replies provides I think examples of several of the bullying behaviours described, and some others not even mentioned there. Is it any wonder that consensus is not achieved under those conditions? Andrewa (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at the essay at WP:STICK. The string at #Guidance against interleaving replies provides I think examples of several of the sticky behaviors described, and some others not even mentioned there. This very thread is worth considering in that light as well. Is it any wonder that consensus is not achieved under those conditions? EEng 20:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there were several allegations of that behaviour. Do you think these allegations were helpful? Andrewa (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on what you're doing right now, I'd say they had no effect at all. EEng 22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

They did not get the response from me that they sought, agreed. But the question I'd like to ask is, if I had dropped the stick as requested, would that have improved Wikipedia? How? Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

By ending the colossal waste of time that has been this discussion. EEng 22:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Firstly, there have been some useful points made since the first request that I drop out. Secondly, I don't think the discussion would have ended just because I dropped out. I could be wrong about that, it's a matter of judgement.

Agree that there has been some time-wasting conduct, that's the whole point of this section!

How can we do better? Andrewa (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What have you achieved apart from wasting the time and energy of several editors? The traditional response to myself and EEng would be that we should just suck it up and take this page of our watchlists if we don't want to participate in the never-ending banter. However, WP:TPG is important and some of us feel that it would be undesirable to be driven away to allow pointless navel-gazing with who-knows-what outcomes. Start an RfC or stop beating the horse. In answer to your question, we could do better by respecting WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously in your eyes I have achieved little. The discussion is of course ongoing, and its outcomes still to be decided. But two points must be made. Firstly, you are obviously involved, and one of the reasons that you don't like what I say is simply that you don't agree with some of it. Secondly, even if you do have valid criticisms of my behaviour (and I'm not perfect but I am seriously trying hard) this is not the place to discuss that, for many reasons... policy and commonsense being the most important of these. The first port of call is my own user talk page.

Agree that this is an extremely important page, and that is why I (and others) are prepared to volunteer so much of our time here. Andrewa (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Accessibility 2

Non-actionable discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SMcCandlish observed in #Accessibility above Accessibility is presently a lost cause on our talk pages... (diff) which I think is a far more important issue than anything in the string of which it is a substring, and deserves a top-level section. I have already confessed to being confused by the provisions for accessibility on talk pages, violating them unintentionally on occasions, and I turned out not to be the only one confused. (I've added the "2" to the section heading to avoid duplicate section headings... I don't think that is covered in any guideline, have I missed it? But it can be very confusing and should be.) Andrewa (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC) And now we have "strings?" EEng 20:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Section and subsection if you prefer. Sorry if you found the terminology confusing. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC) It's cute when philosophers make up new terminology so they can abuse it. EEng 22:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I think that the last two comments by EEng#s, and my replies (that's including this one), should probably be hatted... any volunteers? And any other comments? Is there really a problem with the terminology? Andrewa (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I guess you didn't see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#EEng.27s_editing_at_WT:TPG. Are you never going to get a clue? EEng 22:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I did see that... surprised that it got as far as it did, as I didn't see the required previous discussion on your user talk page (but perhaps I missed it), and it was a rather waffly request anyway. Taken to your user talk page. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I say again, someone please hat this, unless you think there really is a problem with my terminology that requires clarification. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #1

Collapsed first RfC attempt

Recently, there has been substantial discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Guidance against interleaving replies about whether or not interleaving should be discouraged. The discussion has also concerned defining interleaving and benefits to interleaving. Editors have defined interleaving as breaking up another editor's text to reply to individual points; some editors have argued that this is problematic because it confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. There has also been the argument that breaking up an editor's post like this is not an issue if the editors' posts are signed for each point. Further, editors have discussed if "Do not" or "Generally do not" wording should be used if the guideline is to discourage interleaving. See Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Interleave defined and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Visually illustrating the difference between useful and disruptive interleaving, and other sub-threads of the discussion for more details. So the questions are: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? If so, how strict should the discouragement be? Below are some options based on points of the discussion: Voting and wording options 1. No. Do not discourage interleaving. 2. Yes. Discourage interleaving. Use the following wording: "Do not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use the {{Talk quotation}} or {{Talkquote}} templates to quote others' posts." 3. Yes. Discourage interleaving. Use the following wording: "Generally you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use the {{Talk quotation}} or {{Talkquote}} templates to quote others' posts." 4. Use some other wording. I will alert the talk pages of various WikiProjects, policies and guidelines, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for wide input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Mu Close this RFC as malformed and restart in binary format (and my answer will be Discourage). This FRC shares with its own question the major problem: chaotic divergence of discussion into endless disagreement when many things are discussed at the same time by many people. However trivial the ussues are. (Wikipedia is a laughing stock often criticized for this). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Staszek Lem, what binary format do you suggest? I asked about how to format the RfC above. When formatting it, I took in all of the points noted. I didn't see any other way to format the RfC than to give the backstory and present the options that were debated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Probably that the RfC may get clearer results if it were of the form "should WP:TPG discourage interleaving" which would lead to yes or no opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Hmmm, the current format leads to the same options as well. With the new format, how would you suggest providing backstory? By this, I mean providing information so that editors know what has been at dispute and why? Or do you think that the RfC shouldn't provide any context at all? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC) I had promised myself to ignore this page for a few days but I have to enthusiastically endorse the lucid remarks by Staszek Lem. Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Note: This is what the RfC looked like before the collapse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Exceptions

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

---

I have thought of a few good exceptions to these guidelines:

1. Other user’s comments should only be edited if the another commentator made a mistake. There is nothing wrong with correcting someone else’s mistakes. You’ve seen many people do this on various articles.
2. If a user said something stupid and doesn’t want to see it, he or she needs to get permission from the first person who replied before removing the thread entirely. This happened to me at Talk:Grand Theft Auto III when I removed a whole section and it was reverted by Rhain and X201. I started the section “Xbox version” over there and I wanted to remove it because it sounded stupid, but they wouldn’t let me remove the section.
3. If another user received an unwanted notification in an article’s talk page, it is considered embarrassment and must be removed by anyone on sight. These comments should be placed in the user’s talk page instead. I’ve seen Dissident93 do this at Talk:Splatoon#August update info edit warring and Kintetsubuffalo did this to me at Talk:All Star (song). Meters and Boomer Vial reverted my edits once for no reason at all.
4. If a user made a mistake about your life in a comment (such as your age), you can correct it yourself. Lugnuts got my age wrong at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film and Doniago reverted my edits, even though I did the right thing: correcting a lie.

Feel free to share your opinions on any of these exceptions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. When a user like DBZFan30 repeatedly and steadfastly makes childish edits in conflict with Wikipedia policy, confronting their childish, poor editing on the talkpage is most warranted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• We don't need any new exceptions, especially ones that do not actually reflect what Wikipedians do on talk pages. If someone's edit makes a mistake or is using a template in the wrong place ask them to fix it. If they don't, really no one cares. If someone habitually misuses templates, and this is causing disruption, open a WP:ANI thread about it. Posting stupid stuff and realizing it's stupid is part of the learning experience.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• @DBZFan30: Your initial problem here was that you left blank lines which created four lists instead of one (see WP:LISTGAP), which is also an accessibility issue. Your subsequent fix broke the list semantics, creating a second accessibility problem; I have fixed your post in accordance with WP:TPO#Fixing format errors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In May 2017, DBZFan30 was warned about WP:HOUNDing by Lugnuts, for following Lugnuts' edits around and hitting "thanks", and that if DBZFan30 continued, they would face being blocked indefinitely. @NinjaRobotPirate: was pinged for information. Now DBZFan30 is doing the same to me, and I would absolutely support an indefinite block of this troublesome and childish user.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Whilst we can easily find out that they thanked you eleven times today, we cannot see which edits the thanks were related to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy to screencapture it. Even now they are editwarring at All Star (song).--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There'sNoTime warned him. If he keeps up, I guess post a thread at ANI, and one of us will see it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2017 (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.

Disambiguating or fixing links -> Fixing links

The section "Editing others' comments" contains a subsection entitled "Disambiguating or fixing links" . I'm proposing that this be changed to "Fixing links", because a) disambiguating a link is a subtype of link fixing and so it's at best redundant; b) the section enumarates several types of link fixing but does not include disambiguating links. Disambiguating links on talk pages is generally not done and it is explicitly recommended against at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. – Uanfala 15:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Disambiguation --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing talk page archives

It seems to me there should be explicit guidance of some sort on whether/how editors should be allowed to edit talk page archives. In particular, should contributors be allowed to edit other editors' comments per the exceptions listed in WP:TPO, e.g. by removing personal attacks, hatting off-topic posts, or removing comments by banned editors? This thread arises from a discussion I had recently with Guy Macon, who re-piped a bunch of wikilinks in talk page archives to reflect that a redirect had been deleted (example). This was all innocuous, good faith stuff, but I do believe that a consensus would likely support at least partially restricting the editing of talk page archives.

In my view archives should not be edited at all, even to perform housekeeping tasks of the type Guy was engaged in, except to perform housekeeping on the archiving process itself. That way the discussion is fully preserved (the primary purpose of archiving) and editors can see exactly what it looked like prior to archiving, without being misled. The alternative would require editors to review archive page histories, which would be unduly burdensome and unreasonable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman makes a good point, but there is a downside to his proposed explicit guidance. Here are some example cases showing the downside:

Example one: WP:BU was deleted in 2004.[5] There are still multiple comments that link to it, saying things like "For banned users see WP:BU."[6]

Let's say I write an essay tomorrow explaining that some things are not allowed in the sandbox and suggesting that the user edit his sandbox to get the formatting right using the preview button but instead of saving he should make a local backup.

Let's say I give my essay the shortcut WP:BU. Suddenly I have changed the basic meaning of WP:BU from "banned User" to "Back Up" and thus changed the basic meaning of the comment "For banned users see WP:BU".

And I have done so in such a way that the user who made that comment sees no edit to his comment.

Example two: WP:ZIMFF was deleted in June of 2017.[7] There is still a comment that links to it, saying "The page is nothing but a WP:POINTy attack on the folks who drafted WP:ZIMFF".[8] (BTW, I am the one who drafted ZIMFF.)

Let's say that tomorrow I re-use the now-redlinked ZIMFF redirect for an essay on Zimbabwe Freedom Fighters.

Suddenly I have changed the basic meaning of the comment "The page is nothing but a WP:POINTy attack on the folks who drafted WP:ZIMFF". Now it makes no sense. And I have done so in such a way that the original author of the comment (in this case DrFleischman) sees no edit changing the meaning of his comment.

My conclusion: In general, when a redirect is deleted and thus open to be re-used, it benefits the encyclopedia to fix any redlinks to the deleted redirect. And there is nothing special about archived discussions that cause them to be immune to the meaning-changing side effect I describe above. That being said, any efforts to fix the redlink must never introduce even a hint of a change to the meaning of the original comment. We want to avoid the meaning changing, not introduce new problems. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, but I think your approach could lead to more problems than it solves. A redlinked reference to a WP-space redirect in a talk page archive is easy to understand. If you're unsure of what was linked to, you click through the redlink and the relevant deletion discussion will usually pop right up in the search results. In any case, I'm talking about more than that sort of housekeeping, I'm talking about all of the WP:TPO exceptions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman, your good faith suggestion sounds like instruction creep to me. We should not tie the hands of level headed eds who try make reasonable tweaks, and leave a note saying what they did and who they are. And for people waging a campaign by tweaking archives, there's probably plenty of straightforward WP:DISRUPTSIGNS for an admin to take action. In particular, this last group won't be hindered from doing what you are complaining about, just because we add some lingo, and the existing DISRUPT language is sufficient for blocking them. To sum up then, such text would tie hands of level headed eds making reasonable edits, but do nothing to prevent or halt disruptive behavior from others. Though well intended, its a good example of instruction creep.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your argument here. I thought WP:CREEP was about adding instructions that would complicate the guidelines. I'm proposing that we come up with a simple rule on an issue that isn't currently addressed. I'm not belaboring the technicalities of existing guidelines, or about people waging campaigns where WP:DE would apply. The main point would be to address good faith edits to the talk pages archives that would inadvertently interfere and possibly confuse editors who come along later and want to know what was discussed.

Take a hypothetical example that isn't far-fetched to anyone who's been around the horn here. Let's say you have a dispute with Editor A. The dispute is resolved and archived. Later, Editor B, who is sensitive to mild personal attacks and a strict rule follower, is browsing through the archives and comes across your dispute with Editor A and takes it upon themselves to remove your personal attack without a strike-through. The issue then comes up in a later discussion, say after you get into another dispute with Editor A and it ends up at ANI. Now you have a whole bunch of editors who are all confused and possibly misled because no one would think to to check the archive page history, right? What a mess, one that could have been avoided if Editor B had been instructed not edited the archived discussion.

I'm not suggesting this sort of thing comes up often, but that's not what WP:CREEP is all about. It doesn't come up because there's an unwritten community expectation--a norm--that people won't edit the talk page archives. When they do, it's disruptive by its nature, regardless of whether it's done in good faith. I'm suggesting that we make that norm explicit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk page archives almost invariably have a note saying something like "This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page". That ought to be sufficient to stop inexperienced, good-faith editors from editing the archive. The problem with writing rules to reinforce that instruction is that the very people that you claim to be trying to influence are the least likely to actually read WP:TPG. The most likely use for the explicit guidance that you envisage is to beat folks like Guy over the head for doing sensible maintenance on archives. Archives are meant to be static records, yet they rarely are because every included element, templates, images, etc. is dynamically rendered on the page as it is now, not when the archive was made. Unless you're prepared to subst: every template and find a way of fixing every image when archiving occurs, you really ought to be accommodating of maintenance edits whose effect is solely to keep the content as true to the original as possible. In my experience, it's rare that people actually edit archives, and rarer still that they do without really good reason. Hard cases make bad law and we're better off dealing with any genuine problems (like your "Editor B") on a case-by-case basis. --RexxS (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Good points. And FYI I'm not trying to beat Guy over the head! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think for a minute you were. But if you create a club, you'll find that other editors will pick it up and use it (Rexx's First Law of Guidelines). --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, DrFleischman is doing exactly what a good admin should do. Too many times I have seen admins assume that someone who is doing something unusual is Up To No Good. DrFleischman (correctly) assumed that I am someone who wants to improved the encyclopedia, but may have chosen the wrong way of doing so. I am not convinced that I have chosen the wrong way (see my examples and the argument posted by RexxS above) but I could be wrong and it is worth discussing. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman is not an admin. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Guy, not only am I not an admin, but after you explained your rationale on your talk page I stopped particularly caring about your particular edits. I was just struck by your accurate observation that there's no rule against doing these sorts of edits, and how that clashed with my own understanding of community expectations, as well as, as Rexx rightly notes, language that appears in ubiquitous archive page templates. There seems to be some incongruity there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Plus "is doing exactly what a good admin should do" is entirely valid praise even if someone is not an admin. People who exhibit that quality are those who become admins eventually.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman... By distilling WP:CREEP to whether it creates complexity, I think you're not fully grasping that guideline. As stated in the nutshell at that page " Guidance that is too wordy and tries to cover all the bases and every conceivable outlying case tends to become counterproductive"; as you yourself admit, "I'm not suggesting this sort of thing comes up often..." Rarely occurring problems adequately covered by other tools is precisely what is meant by the full guideline's title "Avoid Instruction Creep". I do appreciate anyone's effort at suggesting improvements, however. Thanks for your interest and willingness to propose things! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I stumbled onto a fairly recent, closely-related discussion that spanned WP:VPP and Template talk:Talk archive navigation and got a lot of interesting feedback. I haven't digested it all. I'll probably ping the participants in that discussion at some point, see if they have anything to say. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Fixuture, Martin of Sheffield, Mandruss, ansh666, Xaosflux, MarnetteD, Iazyges, TransporterMan, Robert McClenon, Johnuniq, isaacl, WhatamIdoing, Kudpung, NeilN, Agathoclea, MRD2014, JJMC89, Redrose64. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the fence here, there are merits on all (3?) sides. But the above-linked discussions were about allowing discussion to continue on an archive page, which was a non-starter, and I'm not sure what relevance they have to this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that earlier discussion is relevant, as it was about continuing discussion on an archive page, after the discussion has been archived, or providing a one-click solution for restoring the discussion to the current talk page. isaacl (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Highly relevant, as the earlier discussion was also about whether and how editors should be allowed to edit talk page archives. No matter, if you're not interested in opining here then sorry for bothering you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There are very different considerations, though. Continuing discussion on a talk page archive means a complete change in standard practice, requiring archive pages to be monitored, and users to be contacted. Making maintenance edits is a question regarding preservation of the original comments, something that isn't an issue when continuing a conversation (all previous comments would remain unchanged). So none of the points put forth in the previous discussion apply to this discussion. isaacl (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can agree that the primary purpose of archiving is fully preserving a previous discussion. I know that sounds odd, but my primary use of archived discussions for the last few years has been finding bug numbers. In that context, a working and accurate link is much more useful to me than a perfect copy of the original discussion on whatever arbitrary date it was cut-and-pasted away by a bot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

For those who do want a a perfect copy of the original discussion as it existed on a particular date, bringing up that version from the history is trivially easy -- not a burden at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Except that all of the dynamically generated content (templates, other transclusions, Lua calls in infoboxes, JavaScript, css rendered elements, etc.) will all display as they are rendered now, not necessarily as they were on that particular date. --RexxS (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• I do not have an opinion on this case as I don't have the patience to work out the backstory. However, in general, archive pages should not be edited. There are rare exceptions such as WhatamIdoing's point about fixing typos in important links such as to a Phabricator task (phab:T170039 is an example of a working link). One problem from editing archives is that it sets an example that other editors might emulate. Let's say that an experienced editor could correctly see that changing WP:ZIMFF in an archive was desirable. An unfortunate consequence may be that other editors, possibly less experienced, may invent a job for themselves and routinely "fix" links or other archived text that they think is problematic. While it is always possible to analyze the history of a talk page or its archive to find the original text, doing that can be irritatingly inconvenient. If people start fiddling with perceived problems, scanning an archive to see what happened may no longer be useful. For example, I might have seen the original discussion and recalled it had links to WP:ZIMFF, then later searched ten archives for that text—it would be frustrating to discover that my time was wasted because the text had been adjusted. Everything at Wikipedia should be focused on supporting the encyclopedia and fiddling with archives is an example of an unhelpful activity. Another point is that while fixing a Phabricator link would be easily defensible and probably uncontentious, other less obvious cases (such as changing WP:ZIMFF) will lead to hours of wasted time as seen in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Slippery slope argument. I would encourage you to at least examine the two examples I gave above. They contains diffs to every edit I talk about, and specific examples of how redlinked redirects can change the meaning of a comment. I would also note that when I fixed the redlink, I simply changed WP:ZIMFF to WP:ZIMFF -- so your search would still work just fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged above: as far as having actual "discussions" continue on an archive copy - I'm not seeing any wide support for this, primarily as they won't be on the same watchlists. As far as housekeeping goes - I've made housekeeping cleanups on archive pages (such as resolving Special:LintErrors/self-closed-tag) that due to software changes can impact reading of the page. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll add that continuing discussions that have been archived is already given treatment in the existing TPG, in the section WP:TALKCOND. If it was archived while it was ongoing, we're told to restore it. If it effectively closed, we're told to start a new thread (and when I do that, I always include a WP:DIFF pointing at the archived thread). This is another reason why the good faith suggestion is CREEP. It's already covered! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• While I recognize the good-faith positions of everyone here, let me just say that even without citing CREEP that I just don't think this is needed. And if it were done, needed or not, we might need (a) two or more different sets of rules for, for example, article archives vs noticeboard archives vs noticeboard talk page archives vs MEDCOM case archives, (b) a clearer definition on when and how pages are to be archived in the first place so as to avoid the "can't edit archives" rule becoming weaponized (for example, does the can't-edit rule apply only to archives performed by a archive bot of x days duration or does it also apply to manual or one-click-archiver archivings, and (c) are there some kinds of edits (e.g. de-archiving vs modification or vice versa) which would be exempted from such a rule. The more you chew this the bigger it gets and to what end? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: As seen with this case, I have moved archived material, as to keep the related discussions together for easier reading and coherency (such as when editors are pointing and/or linking to an aforementioned discussion), and I have moved archived material when one archive barely has anything in it. In the latter case, I do this because, for example, there is one discussion in the archive, while the next archive may have packed in more. I don't think it's usually beneficial to have an archive with only one discussion; so I combine the latter archives. The empty archive will eventually be filled with new material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I still think that editing talk page archives is a non-solution in search of a problem. Carrying on discussions in talk page archives would simply spread discussion across more places, which is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

In the case of my edits, though, I didn't truly edit them...content-wise. I moved them, and I do think the moves were beneficial. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

When we manually archive, we are touching the archives, but we are not editing the existing material. That's how I view moving material to an archive when it's not a matter of moving fresh material to an archive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I also feel that a such a codifying is WP:CREEP. Editing of archives has a real world equivalence where for example a birthcertificate gets changed due to parents getting married/adoption ect. We normally would not change somebodies active discussion contributions, so we would not change their archived contributions. There are exceptions to the former, makes sense that there are exceptions to the latter. The only real difference is, that the discussion does not continue in the archive. Agathoclea (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• No new rules that enable control-freaking. Moving stuff in archives for practical reasons is fine (e.g. correcting mis-ordered posts; this can happen when noobs top post and people don't notice then archive stuff in the order in which is appears on the page rather than the order in which it added to the page). There are all kinds of other legit edits people make to talk archives, e.g. fixing links that have become broken (the "nice" way to do this is with a piped link so that in rendered mode it reads as written, but takes people to the correct place); fixing code errors that booger the page display; replacing a template that's been merged out of existence without a redirect, to use the merged-to template, if the template is needed to make sense of something in the archived discussion; fixing one's own typo if it's really important (e.g. if it reversed one's intended meaning by leaving out a "not"); redacting personal attacks, per permissible WP:REFACTOR; striking !votes by proven socks; adding {{talk archive nav}} headers; removing spam and vandalism; reverting errors made by bots or AWB runs; posting pointers to relevant later discussions (especially if they overturned a previous RfC or other consensus discussion); unarchiving a recently archived post, e.g. to close an open RfC (some admins even do this directly in the archive page!), or because a bot auto-archived something that still needed further discussion; and so on. I do many of these things, and no one objects.

  It's a WP:COMMONSENSE and basic maintenance thing. WP has been doing just fine without any rules about this. Adding them 16+ years after the fact is blatant WP:CREEP and WP:BUREAUCRACY, unless there's proof that we have a serious problem on our hands and that it cannot be addressed by normal, existing remedies. See also WP:AJRULE. As for the OP's example, yes Guy Macon's re-piping of links to no longer be broken is permissible and normal. The fact that opposition to this basic maintenance is inherent in support for this proposal in the first place raises my opposition to it by several orders of magnitude. PS: Yes, it is pointless and silly to try to continue to have a discussion in an archive page. We don't need a rule about it because no one competent does it, and doing it won't result in an actual discussion. We need don't need a law against talking to yourself in the basement. If someone posts something that is worthy of discussion, refactor it to the live talk page so it actually gets discussed. If someone is going around adding "the last word" to a bunch of archived discussions, take them to WP:ANI on a WP:DE charge. We have process for this already.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC), revised 23:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Moot due to revision of above comment

SMcCandlish, I do not begrudge you of your position on this and you are entitled to your opinions, but would you please consider striking or at least scaling back your unwarranted accusations about my motives? There's no basis for your assumptions about my motives (undercut by my various comments here, if you had bothered to read them), and I'm straining not to see your "!vote" as an oblique personal attack. I really do not know where this is coming from. You could have made the same points without biting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC) @DrFleischman: Done. Wasn't the intent; I'm commenting about rules of this sort in general and types of misuse/abuse/drama they generate (and this venue is unusually prone to "There oughtta be a law ..." thinking – frankly, if I could WP:TNT any WP:P&G page we have and replace it with a very short list of points essential for the project to function, this would be the page). No implication of personal motive was intended. Hell, I just said above you'd probably make a good admin. ;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Interleaving revisited

I recently ran into a situation where an RfC was posted with the usual Support/Oppose sections and with a threaded discussion section at the bottom. Most editors commented in the designated sections, but two editors decided to post signed comments supporting their POV right in the middle of the header, thus giving their opinions more prominence. They did this after multiple !votes were cast, thus making it so that the later !voters were essentially voting on a different RfC than the early !voters. Is this an example of inappropriate interleaving? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No, its just inattention to layout and formatting and the existing TPG already provides explicit OK for us to fix such things. I fix them like this.... leave the bold part of their vote with a cut and pasted signature in the right section and move the comment with original signature to the right part of the discussion section.... plus I explain what I did and and why in the edit summary. Making such corrections is encouraged by the existing TPG and though you did not ask, consider the fixing editor... that ed is not "interleaving" either, since by definition interleaving is making our own comments in the middle of someone else's, and following the existing TPG to fix someone else's layout and format errors is something else.... of course, we have to be careful to just do the fix in one edit, and make our own comments in another. As for the intention of an ed in not following the layout, well sure it might be intentional to gain advantage but who cares? AGF means we assume it was an accident and the most constructive response is WP:SOFIXIT.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's probably unintentional disruption (which is still disruption). But why don't you link to the RfC so we can see? Andrewa (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Wow, what a mess. Definitely disruptive. And yes, you could call this "interleaving"... just as the previous example of undeniably bad interleaving mixed with outdents was interleaving. But it seems agreed that these are all examples of bad interleaving, and already discouraged as disruptive editing. And they don't follow the convention that I and others have followed and want to continue to use. Not at all.

To discourage interleaving generally just because it can be used so badly is akin to discouraging the drinking of water because it's a component of beer, in the hope of reducing drunkenness.

It would be good to provide guidance as to exactly how interleaving can be used. Even the strictest teetotallers say that water is OK if it's not part of an alcoholic drink. We should follow their example. Andrewa (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed it's disruptive, probably unintentional, and that it isn't "interleaving". It just bonehead, and the fix is to refactor the posts into the proper order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It was definitely intentional. When an uninvolved editor attempted to refactor the posts into the proper order. The editor who posted in the wrong place reverted him. When I objected I was told in no uncertain terms that this comment must remain in the lead of the RfC because the author considered his opinion to be more important than the opinions of the proles in the comment section. I am not talking about a mistake. I am talking about deliberately disrupting an RfC because you don't want that particular question to be asked. I may be wrong, but I think it is interleaving. I posted something -- in this case the heading of an RfC -- and another editor posted his reply right in the middle of what I posted, ignoring the comment section where everyone else was responding. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It is "interleaving" of a sort, but not the sort that anyone is proposing should be allowed, which is the sort we are discussing here, or trying to. See my (now properly signed) comments above. Andrewa (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually under certain circumstances adding a comment to the start of an RfC is permitted, I added the possibility years ago to the RfC page: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased." (see the section "Suggestions for responding"). This was added to stop closewars over an RfC that had a perceived (or real) biased (non neutral) introduction, and a lack of goodwill between two parties. -- PBS (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing section headings

If a section heading is changed, it breaks existing links to that section. This can be very simply fixed by adding an {{anchor}} using the old section name, which preserves these links.

This came up with this edit, which is problematic for several reasons. But changing the section heading in that way does not seem to violate the guideline.

I suggest that the guideline should state:

• If you change a section heading, check whether this will break any incoming wikilinks, and add an {{anchor}} template if it will or if in doubt.
• The new section heading should be unique on the page. It should not exactly duplicate any other section heading (at any level) or any existing anchor.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Part oppose/part support Opposed to saying "check whether this will break an incoming wikilinks" because that sounds like it is setting up a precondition to fixing problems with headings, and I'm opposed to creating procedural obstacles the wikilawyers can turn into clubs. In addition, if people correctly add the anchor then this "check step" would be superfluous. Support that some helpful guidance would be beneficial but stopping short of making anchors a requirement. I'm speaking as one who does change headings when they are non-neutral and though I was vaguely aware this problem might arise, I had no idea this simple coding could solve it. The only down side I see is that problematic language in an original heading would be preserved at least to eds looking at the wikicoded text in the edit window... but doesn't that mean everyone who chooses to comment? For most things an anchor is easy and prevents anyone from getting lost. But for really outrageous headings, its probably better to accept the low risk/low impact possibility of broken links than tolerate the certain/highly visible original outrageous text within the anchor codes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Adding advice good, adding new guideline rule bad. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Before we embark on another endless discussion trying to dissect, taxonomize, categorize, and legislate against all manner of hypothesized problems, can I ask for a diff of an actual example of a problem caused by a changed section heading? Yes, we all know it can happen. Yes, we all know it has happened – somewhere, sometime. But humor me.... do you actually have such an example handy? EEng 03:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I would refuse to respond to that on minor-WP:POINT grounds, honestly. If we already concede that it happens, it's a pointless waste of another editors' time to try to arm twist them into posting examples of it happening. Most of us do not keep running logs of "stupid stuff I see on Wikipedia"; we just fix the stupid and move on. The issue is whether we consider this a frequent enough problem to address, and if so whether we want to do it in "please" or a "do/do not" manner.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is an actual example. Andrewa (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's just an example of a section heading being changed. Where's the problem created thereby? Where's the broken link? Someone adds a thread to an obscure article's talk page, and twelve hours later someone modifies the title of the thread to be a bit clearer, and we're supposed to run around fretting about whether, maybe, someone somewhere had linked to the thread in the meantime. Another giant waste of time. EEng 15:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I can provide the diff of the broken link if you like.

Agree this was Another giant waste of time. And that's because most of the comments above seem to be by people who have not read the proposal, and none of them seem to have read the existing guideline any more carefully than I did. Had someone linked to the relevant section earlier it might have been a little waste of time, but see my comments below... there is still room for improvement. Simmer down and let's improve Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Concur with Guy Macon; having some advice about this is probably a good idea, but do no insert more rules. This page should dump about half the rules on it as it is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Just because "talk" is in the title of this guideline does not mean we have to keep talking forever. Imagine if WP:TPG were perfect and covered all points showing how editors could avoid breaking things. How would that actually help the "with this edit" example in the OP? Only tragics have examined this guideline and there is no way its wording would influence what happened there. This is another of a "learn by example" situation where if an editor has good reason to believe the edit was unhelpful, they should revert or fix it, with explanation in edit summary or talk. The corridors of Wikipedia are full of misguided and confused people and tweaking guidelines to point out the obvious will not help. NewsAndEventsGuy is correct that WP:TPG should not include a club to impede the correction of dubious section headings. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I certainly was not suggesting a club to impede the correction of dubious section headings, in fact my suggested addition did not provide any restriction to changing section headings, none whatsoever. Rather it suggested that when headings are changed, and anchor should be added to avoid breaking links, and the section heading should be unique. Nothing more than that. Andrewa (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Isn't this already covered at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Section headings? – Uanfala 16:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thus we find that this is yet another completely useless, half-baked thread wasting time on something already handled. I wonder how many more we have in store. EEng 17:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I propose opening up an extensive discussion on the topic of completely useless, half-baked threads wasting time on something already handled. Hey! Why is everybody throwing things at me??? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea although made in jest. The above discussion is simply appalling. Do we really expect to retain editors when we carry on like this? Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a bit unfair, and not in the spirit of collaboration, especially considering how many others also missed the paragraph in question. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point, thank you Uanfala, and I had somehow missed that (as have several others above). Perhaps it needs to be a bit more prominent... the anchor doesn't appear in the TOC of course, and the section is Editing others' comments, and says in part no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading, so changing a section heading is arguably not Editing others' comments at all. Maybe that's why so many of us missed it. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this needs to be more prominent within this guideline. The need to be mindful of breaking links to sections is not specific to talk pages, if anything it's even more relevant for other namespaces and it's already explained at the most general level possible at WP:HEADING and Help:Section#Section linking. – Uanfala 18:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Also good points. But I do make the point that the guideline already reads In order to ensure links to the previous section heading (including automatically generated links in watchlists and histories) continue to work, one should use one of the following templates to anchor the old title: {{formerly}}, {{Visible anchor}}, {{anchor}} (my emphasis added) and, until you pointed it out, none of us seemed aware of that. So I wasn't actually proposing anything new except adding an option of not using the templates if there were no incoming links (which I now think was a bad idea anyway).

(That part of the guideline seems to have been written before the current system of notifications was implemented, which is now also a plentiful source of automatically generated links to section headings, but the point is just that these incoming links may well exist and it's not easy to find them. Which is why my proposal to weaken the guideline by allowing the option of checking for incoming links was a bad idea.) Andrewa (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

So still think it might be a little more prominent. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You could say the same about every bit of advice in the TPG, since each point is overlooked by someone, somewhere, at least some time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's put the whole page in bold. That way it will all be more prominent. EEng 13:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Why stop with bold? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Why indeed? EEng 16:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the humorous attempt to illustrate the point. We now return to our regularly scheduled high noise to signal ratio. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Not sure what to do about it, but it would be good to do something. Instruction creep is not the answer. We have too many bloody rules already. We need to somehow make attitudes a bit more collaborative, they seem to be deteriorating to me. And both wp:AGF and wp:NPA have largely gone out the window, we only intervene when it's already in danger of starting world war three. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As badly and consistently as in the above? I think not. Thankfully. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a complete waste of time

Thanks again Uanfala for your to-the-point contribution, which answered my first point and enabled me to progress the issue concerned.

I think I should give up on the second, about duplicate section headings. It's also covered in our maze of rules, just not as well as I'd like. But I see no chance of improving it by discussion here. I might just make a bold change and see what happens.

Thanks to all who have contributed as able. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Striking through a user's own talk page, wr to WP:TPO?

If a user is given a warning that they specifically disagree with (and it's not one of the mandatory unremovables, such as a refused unblock request), they are clearly permitted to blank it. Are they also permitted to strike it through instead? This is re: [9], and this warning given in response. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

(1) This question is based on a fallacy. The DS/alert template that kicked this off is not a warning. Prior to the DS overhaul in 2013-14 or therabouts, DS indeed used a "warning" system following an edit that raised others' ire. The receipt of such a warning was perceived as a rebuke, and so under the old system there were frequent dramas and disputes over the giving of them, and whether the receivers' edits merited them in the first place. Under the new system, the "alert" is emphatically nothing more than an FYI. I give them to myself the moment I enter a topic area to which DS applies. I give them to others, even people who have made stellar edits or comments to be proud of. They are nothing more than an FYI, after all. And so the question here is based on a fallacy. The edit that was struck out was not a warning, just an FYI.

(2) So can we add strike out to others comments on our own talk page? Or are we limited to just three options (a) archive (b) leave alone (c) delete entirely? In my view, if an editor gives someone else a bit of helpful advice, they should put it out there and WP:DROPTHESTICK. The receiver can do whatever they want with helpful advice. We don't really need to say in our TPG that adding strikeout is tantamount to giving someone the finger, or is a no no or any such thing. See WP:CREEP. Eds who get the idea of respectful collaboration don't need guidelines for the obvious, and for others, who don't understand that concept, yet more micro rules won't make a whit of difference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not possible to have a guideline that covers all the ways people can be silly, but the example given is as bad as it gets. That's because there is a strong convention that the author of a comment may strike their text after reflection—the striking is to avoid misleading future readers who might spend time analyzing the comment when in fact the author has now withdrawn it because it was based on incorrect information, or they changed their mind, or whatever. In the example given above, the recipient of a discretionary sanctions notice struck the comment, which makes it appear that the comment's author had struck it. The author was correct to assert the striking violates WP:TPO. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with that. If this "violates TPO" and especially if this violates TPO to the level of being blockable, than TPO has to state that clearly beforehand. Now I don't disagree with the implications of such a strikethrough or any questions of "fingers". But if we're going to be blocking editors for breaches of policy, that policy has to make itself clear. I cannot find any such in TPO as it stands. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

People are not blocked for striking someone's comment (done once or twice), and there is no reason to think that occurred in this case. I see no indication of that in the block log or the user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

And yet they are blocked. And were also threatened for being blocked, on this basis of TPO. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. John (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Johnuniq for a perspective I had not considered. Yes formatting others remarks may give the appearance that the author of the comment did the formatting and could be read to change meaning. In the present example its at a users own talk page, and the added formatting does not change the tags set in the server log for purposes of invoking DS (specifically, the criteria used to determine if the editor was "aware" DS applies. So in my view taking whatever dispute to the users page and continuing the tit for tat, first by the hosting editor adding strikeout (perhaps under a misunderstood reading of WP:OWNTALK) and then by others worrying about this drama on a usertalk page when it doesn't really change anything tangible at least raises the possibility that there is enough meta:Don't be a jerk to go around. Elsewhere, though, I guess I can see how specific circumstances might create enough genuine disruption that admin action is needed to prevent further problems, which is the only legitimate basis for such action. In sum, I don't think the present example exposes a gap in the TPG, only in the judgment of the ed who added the strikeout and others who complained about it. Are ya'll sure taking the spat to user talk in this manner was not an extension of a WP:BATTLE, as opposed to writing good article text? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• A related question is whether generally it's alright to strike other people's (good faith) comments. I occasionally do that with blatantly inappropriate templated messages on the talk pages of newbies. – Uanfala 09:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I do that myself, not infrequently (and often to Cluebot). I think it has a semantic difference though: TPO has always taken the line that "an offender" may remove a message indicating that it has been read. When a 3rd part strikes a warning, that's an indication that they not only disagree, but see the warning as inapplicable to an unarguable level (and presumably would say so at ANI, if it went that far). Such a warning could still be a GF error.

In this case, can the accused remove the warning by striking it, also indicating that they dispute its validity completely?

As this hinges on the semantic difference noted, and TPO has never extended that to the accused, then I have to agree that they can't do this. But in which case, we need to clarify TPO. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Fact that you speak of "the accused" suggests you really didn't understand the first paragraph in my first comment in this thread. DS Alert templates have nothing to do with "accusations" zip none nada. They're just an FYI "Please be advised that..." period, nothing more or less. Attempts to make them more or less likely indicate WP:BATTLE mentality motivating the person who is trying to add this negative connotation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I understand how you might use them, but in the case linked here, they're being used (repeatedly) to bully editors with whom the poster has a disagreement. There's a thread on ANI to this effect.

I can't imagine a neutral poster of such notifications really caring too much what happens to them, but in this case they (and the strike-through) are being used to call for a block: " their very poor approach to striking comments from others on their talk page, which is a blockable offence in its own right". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit squared. --John (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andy, Re your comment that .."they're being used (repeatedly) to bully editors..." did you just say that DS templates are being posted on editors' talk pages in an effort to bully editors into submission? If that's the real issue here, then see "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." Also, the template text itself has some language about decorum and how they are to be used. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think Johnuniq has it right. Strike-throughs should only be done by the author on their own comments. An editor is welcome to archive or remove a DS notice on their talk page but making a strikethrough seems to violate REFACTOR. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Technically I agree, but the user page formatting in this example does not alter the way DS is applied. The server still has a record of the notice, and that's enough to apply DS should the need later arise. This is an example of the behavior coming to our attention through a non-issue, in my opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• It does make it look like the original poster was responsible for striking the notice, as they were the last one to sign it. Either the talk page's 'owner' should have added a 'striking' note and their own signature, or it should have been collapsed. –Sb2001 01:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
• I agree striking out what another editor says is changing it and only the original editor should normally do that. They could have added their own comment or removed it. I see no need to change anything in the guidelines. I see nothing blockable about it in itself - the person should just be asked to change it or the whole thing removed. Continually doing it in a PITA way could be blockable but then so can practically anything. Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Dope! For at least two years the section of TPG titled "Editing others' comments" has included "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." So this issue seems to be explicitly addressed already NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have to agree with those who say don’t strike others comments. This is because I don’t see what a strike through accomplishes... if you don’t like a comment or a notice placed by another editor on your talk page... you can simply remove it. (Yes, we have a few exceptions to this, but what we are talking about isn’t one of them.). Just delete the notice. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussing ed behavior at article talk

At the current version of WP:Dispute resolution we have a couple places that talk about content vs conduct disputes and where each should be discussed. Its possible the current text can be read to say it is OK to talk conduct at article talk. I don't think that's consistent with our intent and would like to discuss it. Below I have quoted the relevant text and marked the questionable text in red. The red text came to my attention in this talk thread. Since the sections are basically explaining the TPG I came here to get a wider review.

I'll start by quoting the two sections of the DR project page, tell you about the bold edit I tried, and will wrap up by comparing the relevant language in our TPG.

• Subsection "Focus on Content", which is familiar to most of us as the target for the commonly cited redir WP:FOC. The current text reads (entire)

Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation. Focusing on content, and not bringing up conduct, can be difficult if it seems other editors are being uncivil or stubborn. Stay cool! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue detailed below; but at no juncture should you lose your temper. Wikipedia is not like the rest of the Internet: we expect editors to be polite and reasonable at all times.

---Dispute resolution project page, subsection "Focus on Content"

• Subsection "Resolving user conduct disputes". With red added by me, the relevant part of current text reads

If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article Talk pages.

---Dispute resolution project page, subsection "Resolving user conduct disputes" (red added)

This red text is the focus of the dispute At the project talk page (thread link in first paragraph at top of post) Fluous (talk · contribs) commented that the red text implies it is OK to discuss conduct/behavior at article talk, just not favored. Fluous seems to think our rules already prohibit conduct discussion at article talk and I agree. I tried a bold edit to eliminate that alleged inconsistency. My edit changed the section with the red text to

If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior), per an [[WP:FOC|earlier section of this guideline]] do not discuss it at the article talk page. Instead for conduct disputes, the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way.

However, Stickee (talk · contribs) reverted, saying in his edit summary that my edit was changing policy, and saying at that talk page that the sections are not inconsistent. ("it's not at odds with FOC. FOC also gives guidance, and not a rule that discussing conduct is completely prohibited. That's why it says 'focus on content' and not 'only discuss content'.")

So that's the issue at that other venue. But to be consistent overall, I came here to look at the TPG, because this is the main guideline on the topic. Our TPG says

Talk Page Guidelines-

Section heading - Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration

Hatnote - These guidelines apply specifically to discussion pages which are used for collaboration, which includes just about all talk pages other than user talk pages. The application of these guidelines to user talk pages should be governed by common sense and should not supersede guidelines and policies specific to those pages.

Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

--- Current TPG, bold in original

One of these wikilinks points right at WP:FOC, which I quoted at the top of this post. So they're all tied to together and should be as clear as possible.

SUMMING UP - I think our TPG and WP:FOC are trying to say we shouldwill not talk conduct at article talk, and I think the red flagged text quoted from the DR project page could be improved by making that more clear. In particular, I do not think my attempted edit was changing our rules, only making them clearer and more internally consistent. Anybody? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the long opening post but thanks for reading this far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the most permissive interpretation is the correct one - long discussions of editor behavior should be discouraged at article talk, but it doesn't make sense to forbid them completely in the general case. Making short assertive comments on user behavior, and polite requests to behave following WP:CIVIL (e.g. "I have concerns that you are too involved in the topic, please calm down and let other editors develop their arguments") may be helpful at refocusing discussion and smooth collaboration. Requiring that all these comments be moved to talk pages would make the discussion harder to follow, and would prevent other editors from noticing them. There are times when comments on editor behavior are forbidden for good cause (very heated topics subject to arbitration remedies), but this should not be the default. Diego (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Note the last bold text in my opening post. That's a bolded quote in the current TPG that says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Are you saying that actually means "Comment on content, (mostly) not on the contributor"? That's what it sounds like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying that "try to avoid" is better here that "do not". "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is good advice, but if someone makes a remark at an article Talk page addressing the behavior of some other editor, we wouldn't want someone else saying "hey, you've commented on the contributor's behavior, you've breached policy!" as a throwing weapon. There will be extreme cases where doing this and failing to WP:GETTHEPOINT will be disruptive, but these will be already covered by WP:UNCIVIL. Better keep this policy to provide advice about civil dispute resolution, and leave enforcement for other dedicated policies. Diego (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Some clarification could be undertaken, but we cannot ignore the fact that the reality and the norm is that editorial behavior that directly affects a particular article or attempts at consensus formation about the article are routinely discussed, at least in short, at the article talk page. This is never going to change.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventGuy: It's a heading. Headings aren't meant to be comprehensive. Just like the 3rd pillar that says "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" doesn't mean literally anyone - if you're banned or blocked you can't. There's always nuance involved, just like in this case. Stickee (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)