Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Anonymous user -> unregistered user

{{edit semi-protected}}

As per

• WP:HUMAN,
• WP:IP,
• WP:ANONYMOUS,
• WP:IP edits are not anonymous and
• Meta:Unregistered user.

I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, registered users are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.

Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.

In light of this, please change "registered and anonymous users" -> "registered and unregistered users". Thanks. 113.197.147.212 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Kansan (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes WP:HUMAN and I live the sadness in front of my work. (read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.29.168.231&redirect=no) Good luck --70.29.168.231 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Great idea! I didn't even realize we had a violation on our hands in such a simple term! 96.48.109.20 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Inserting replies in the middle of a comment

I recall that there used to be an admonition not to insert replies into the middle of a comment by another editor.

:Point 1 by user:A

::Reply 1 by user:B, sig

:Point 2 by user:A

::Reply 2 by user:B, sig

:Point 3 by user:A, sig

In this example, user:B's signature is repeated throughout the commentary, but user:A's appears only at the end. The rationale for prohibiting was that it becomes muddled. However I don't see anything about it in this guidelines anymore, nor can I find any discussion in the archives. Was it moved or deleted, or am I misremembering?   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that example is muddled, but I don't think inserts are prohibited, when the two priorities are, we are building an encyclopedia, and "don't change the meaning".  User B, or for that matter other editors, can do more by identifying where the inserts begin and end, such as with:

:Point 1 by user:A

::[insert begins here]

::Reply 1 by user:B, sig

::[insert ends here]

:Point 2 by user:A

::[insert begins here]

::Reply 2 by user:B, sig

::[insert ends here]

:Point 3 by user:A, sig

Also, User B could use Template:TopicBranch to minimize the insertion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bold

I find bold comments on my personal talk page very distracting. Is it OK to change the font after a comment has been read or is this disruptive editing? An experienced editor is edit warring because I changed the font from bold to normal for his comment on my talk page, but I consider this a trivial change. QuentinUK (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with the guidance in the Personal talk page cleanup point on the project page, under Others comments. Partial quote: "On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how to comment correctly but I would like to put on record that this is the best general knowledge resource available on the internet and it should be properly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.129.117 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing the title of a proposal section?

I added a section to the 2011 Reno Air Races crash discussion page, proposing that the The Galloping Ghost airplane article be merged into it. The discussion section title was, appropriately, "Merge The Galloping Ghost airplane into 2011 Reno Air Races crash".

After a number of people had commented, and voted for and against, someone changed the title to "Merge The Galloping Ghost airplane & Jimmy Leeward into 2011 Reno Air Races crash". No mention of this change was made in the body of the discussion, and in fact it took several days for me to notice. I found this objectionable, because my original proposal had been rewritten without notice, changing the meaning of my and other editors.

I've objected to the editor in question, but when I went looking for Wikipedia policy backing, I was surprised to find none.

I would like to suggest a policy on changing the title/meaning of a proposal. At the very least, the changer should clearly add a statement to the discussion that he has changed the title. I would suggest, however, that more restrictions would be warranted, and perhaps even the title/meaning of a proposal should not be changed without the permission of the original author. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally there are no instructions that prohibit dumb behavior, per WP:BURO (not a bureaucracy), and it is unlikely there would be much support for adding something like "don't substantively change the heading after discussion has been in progress without clear consensus in advance" to the guideline. That's because there are hundreds of other unhelpful things that editors can do (I remember one case where an editor spent a large amount of time finding and "correcting" typos and formatting issues in old discussions), and there is no need to document precisely what is permitted. Just take whatever (civil) action you can to rectify the issue and forget about it. Contact an admin if problem persists. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy

I understand what Talk is, so why is it important to combine the term like slang and say Discussion is a "Talk" page, when Talk is Talk and Discussion is Discussion. Any 'help please' would seriously be some good help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore (talk • contribs) 13:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Too Much Room For Interpretation

This comment from the Talk Page Guidelines article:

It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above.

leaves too much wiggle room. It nullifies the previous comments about not deleting others talk page comments in the minds of those who want to remove argument about the editing of the main articles. It's meant to keep everyone on the same page, that being the desired slant of the article. Just call it a rant and be done with it. I've seen time and time again where legitimate talk page comments are removed this way. 4.246.207.192 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's why it specifically says "about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)". Kaldari (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand. However it can be extremely difficult to separate the two. How do you discuss editing a subject if you are not allowed to discuss the subject itself? This confusion is allowing censors (and there are A LOT of them on wiki pages, usually groups of people representing right-wing political, religious or business interests in the guise of honest, non-partisans SOLEY interested in bettering the article) to essentially sit on selected articles and keep the discussion centered only on certain slants about the topic, and that, of course, slants the article itself. This is usually information that is pro-their POV and anti-other POVs no matter how well founded. The result is articles that are horribly one sided and intentionally misleading. You see it all the time in little comments telling editors to "stay on topic." If they "wander" their edits are deleted. Actually removing someone's talk page comments is the final act in this censorship.

Examples where this is occurring: [1][2][3]

For example take the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society article. There in spite of many voices arguing over the years that the SSCS are not some kind of militant guerrillas, in spite of the fact that they have overwhelming popular support, determined editing has the Society described there as terrorist no less than 7 times! There was a section called something like 'SSCS's response to charges of terrorism', which you'd think would be warranted since the charge is rather extreme, but no, not allowed. The guy who took over the article a couple of years ago, "cptnono", is even comfortable saying "My bias has historically been anti-SSCS" 05:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC). To make it difficult to find particular objections in the past the archives have been cleverly divided in tiny chunks.

The Missionary article used to have a controversy section. Outside the western world Christian missionaries are quite controversial. But that is not allowed within the article in spite of many people asking for one. There have been good solid attempts made but they've all been removed. Just look at the talk pages for evidence of this. On many target articles Wikipedia has become little more than a mouth piece for conservatives with an agenda.

I would like to refer to the Information Supression on the NPOV Tutorial page, an excellent, albeit routinely ignored exhortation. 4.246.205.36 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

I need help with interpretation of this guideline. More precisely New topics and headings on talk pages. According to this part of guideline we should keep headings neutral and:

• Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user.
• Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines. Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators.

The guideline explains that someone can "attack other users by naming them in the heading" because it "is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period"

There is a discussion here about this guideline and its interpretation.

I have a simple question: Is it allowed to name other users in the headings if you want to discuss their edits?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the recent change of the guideline my question is still valid since both previous and changed version of the guideline say: "Never address other users in a heading"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please look up what the verb "address" means in English. It means "talk to someone", not "talk about someone". For example, "XYZ, why did you revert me?" would be a heading "addressing" XYZ. "Edits by XYZ" is not a heading "addressing" XYZ. The explanation of that passage in the guideline is very clear about what its scope and intention is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. It is obvious that there is dispute between me and you Fut.Perf. about the interpretation of this guideline. I did look up what the verb "address" means in English. According to merriam-webster.com it can mean: direct, aim, to direct the efforts or attention of (oneself), to deal with ....

I would still like to learn how this guideline is interpreted by other (noninvolved) users and to get an answer on simple question: Is it allowed to name other users in the headings if you want to discuss their edits?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the context. ANI etc., yes. Article talk, probably a bad idea. Gerardw (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent change of the guideline

This guideline has been changed and now it doesn't say that someone can "attack other users by naming them in the heading".

I don't agree with this change. I still believe that someone can "attack other users by naming them in the heading" because it "is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I have slightly reworded the guideline text to forestall this misunderstanding. To construe the phrase "attack other users by naming them in the heading" as if it implied that any instance of "naming" automatically constituted an "attack" is, of course, absurdly against common sense, but the grammar of the wording as it stood indeed made this misunderstanding possible, on an extremely narrow legalistic reading. (The absurdity becomes obvious when you consider that this would force us to believe that a heading of "Thanks to XYZ for their wonderful edits" would automatically constitute an "attack" on XYZ!) – What the guideline was always meant to express, and has always been understood as expressing, was that you shouldn't include a user's name together with an attack on them. I've changed the wording to "making an attack against a named user in a heading". Neutral topic titles of the "Recent edits by XYZ" type have always been used widely, and have never caused any objections before Antidiskriminator started going round protesting against them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I still don't agree with your approach. Please read this guideline more carefully. There is a very important section about keeping section names neutral. It says: "Do not praise in headings: You may wish to commend a particular edit, but this could be seen in a different light by someone who disagrees with the edit."

After you explained your approach I do agree that not every mention of other users in the section names is PA. Still, I believe that the spirit of this guideline was to keep headings neutral. That means to prevent mention of other users name in the section headings both in case of disputed edits or in case of "praising". Therefore I am still against the changes you introduced to this guideline.

You made another mistake when you wrote that "never caused any objections before Antidiskriminator started going round protesting against them." There is another user who started this discussion and wrote mentioning another user's name in a talkpage heading in a negative way is a violation of talkpage guidelines. It is incivil and a form of personal attack.

I think that it is obvious that you changed this rule to match your interpretation. Your change contradicts the spirit of the rule and other requests of this rule. I think you should revert your changes. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing negative in the heading "Recent Edits by Alexikoua". There is obviously some content disagreement in the body of that section, but that does make the said heading a personal attack. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I support Fut.Perf.'s changes. The old wording appears to have engendered a number of silly misunderstandings. A heading "Edits by User:Foo" is not a personal attack, and I can image an occasion when it would necessary (ANI, ArbCom etc.) Surely a more content-related heading would be better on article talk pages, but sometimes there may be no discernible topic to some edits, to put it politely. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest adding "Whenever possible, prefer headings that refer solely to contents on article talk pages." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That was practically said in the other bullet on keeping article talk page headers about contents, so I've appended to that. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Have mörser, will travel has reverted me to an unstable version of the guideline, rendering all of the changes thereafter incomprehensible.  Consistently incomprehensible is that Have mörser, will travel says above that he/she supports the intent of the change made by User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise, as if the revert to a defective version of the guideline was believed to be an improvement of the guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Your attempted improvement of Fut.Perf.'s wording was actually a case of "back to square one". What you wrote could be interpreted as just "naming them in the heading is especially egregious". [4]. This what caused the dispute above to begin with. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

[previous version redacted] I think that others will believe that you are familiar with the English word "and", and IMO your response is inherently weak.  IMO the reasonable response would be a further improvement that would address both issues, rather than restoring a version of the guideline known to be defective.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Don't do A and B" can be read as "don't do A and also don't do B". Please avoid continuous hyperbole and patronizing statements such as "all of the changes thereafter incomprehensible", "you are familiar with the English word 'and'", "your response is inherently weak", or "create a mess". They can be interpreted as uncivil. Your sophism about the dual meaning of "named users" notwithstanding, I found Fut.Perf.'s wording less ambiguous than yours, so I reverted to his version before making some minor improvements elsewhere in the guideline. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you reconsider the use of a redacted quote taken from the edit history in order to make the statement that you did about it.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't redacted when I composed my reply. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The formulation "Doing A and B is especially egregious" is not terribly ambigous to a careful reader. But if you expand A resulting in the more complex sentence "Doing A in order to achive X and B is especially egregious", then it is difficult for many to parse that as "don't do A and B together". It's clear that most editors who come to read this guideline come in the heat of some dispute about changing talk page headings and probably have a strong incentive to give this guideline the tilt they desire. So, it should be easy to parse. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not ambiguity exists in the wording I added, this is not a cause to restore a literally erroneous edit.  Nor does adding the concept "sophistry" (From www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophism, : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive) make the edit other than literally erroneous.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"a literally erroneous edit"? Because "named user" can be interpreted as the user named in the heading and as the trivial truth that all users are named? And you revert because of that to a considerably worse version?! That is the very definition of sophism in a modern sense. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating's version

I note that the improvement made by Unscintillating, who has now reverted to his one-day-long "stable" version, consists of merely replacing "by" with "and" [5]. His sentence is still very ambiguous as I explained above. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, today is October 7 and this is today's edit that restored the version from September 26.  This version remained as stable for more than a week (ref).  Unscintillating (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal

Proposed:

• Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways which clearly do not contribute to the discussion at hand may be removed.

Gerardw (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mention WP:CRD?

Should this guideline mention available remedies such as WP:CRD for material that makes it into edit history summaries via the headings? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)