User:Oddbodz/When Discussion Changed to Talk

'''Below is a discussion that took place at WP:PROPS between December 2011 and January 2012. I have kept this discussion as a historical refrence. This page should NOT be edited. The actual disscussion has not been edited in any way. Please discuss any changes on the Talk (previously known as Discussion) page.''' 
 * ''The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Consensus is in favor of changing the discussion link to Talk. Those in favor cite many resons why this change will stimulate new editor participation, while most who oppose only state personal preference. They 'ayes' have it. — Edokter  ( talk ) — 16:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC tag added on 09:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Hi. A lot of Wikipedia instructions tell people to post "on the talk page". However, it isn't obvious where this means, since the page is not labelled "talk page" but is labelled "discussion". This is very confusing, especially for someone unfamiliar with all the Wikipedia rules. Wny not change the text on the tab from "Discussion" to "Talk page" to match all the instructions? (By instructions I am referring to everything you get when you click Help, as well as so many of the templates used to tell posters why their edit was not accepted and how to fix it. (184.147.120.119 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

''Just a note: the page which will need to be changed is MediaWiki:Talk. sonia ♫ 09:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

'' At 17:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I changed the title of the post from 'Call talk pages "Talk Page"' to 'Call talk pages "Talk"', because there is a massive consensus among people supporting this change for using 'Talk' in specific and some opposition to 'Talk Page' in specific.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  17:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support this one per 2011 "State of the Wiki" address. Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Support continuity I don't much mind which is prefered or even if another name like "chatter" or "gobledigook" (well maybe not) is chosen, but I do think we would be better off with one name for all "talk pages" across the whole site.  fredgandt  00:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a 2007 discussion at Village pump (proposals)/Archive AN. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about just calling it Talk. That one is even more heavily implied than discussion, although to me, discussion is so obvious that I feel this change is unneeded.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, yes I didn't read properly. Talk is what I support. Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC).


 * I support discussion. This is primarily because of the popularly brought up rule "This is not a forum for general talk about the article's subject". Georgia guy (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I support Talk because that's what most people call it anyway. @Georgia guy, talk and discussion are basically synonymous, so that rule could be changed to "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". There's not really any difference. Bazonka (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about suggested improvements pages?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a little too specific. It would also only make sense for article talk pages. The proposal (I agree with in principal) is to name all talk pages the same way so that wherever users are guided to talk pages they are not confused by finding a "discussion" page but no "talk" page.  fredgandt  18:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.s. Also it would be a massive tab! Face-wink.svg  fredgandt 
 * Support. I've idly wondered about why this isn't labelled "Talk" on and off for years. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support for Talk page. I have also  wondered about  this many  times myself. It  may  also  be confusing  for non native speakers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC) - or just  simply  'Talk'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "Talk". The name "discussion" is simply never used for talk pages, so it is simply counterproductive to use it in the most prominent place of all. 124.168.87.221 (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Improving clarity is rarely a bad thing, and I can't remember ever seeing "discussion" used except in the tab. Alzarian16 (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "Talk". As pointed out previously, it's the most commonly used term for the page, so it would be the most user-friendly.--JayJasper (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor Oppose I don't want to be the lone dissenter here....and my reasons are mainly aesthetic. On places where it DOES say 'talk' it just kinda looks...off. It's probably just a matter of getting used to one over the other, but also the word 'discussion' seems to carry a better connotation, IMO, than 'talk'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Melodia, you're not alone. I've already stated my feelings but not my personal preference, since my preference goes against what I see as the best course of action (if any). I prefer "Discussion" too, but as is being mentioned time and time again here, "Talk" is a colloquialism we can't escape. If this proposal has any value (and I believe it does), it will be to set a standard, continuous use of one word across the site. If we were to choose "Discussion", we would have to change so many policies and templates etc. we would get nothing else done for years. Quite simply, "Talk" is too engrained to oust now, so supporting continuity may mean not getting the word we prefer, but we do get less confusion.  fredgandt</i>  07:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Many templates use "see the talk page" or similar for direction, and it's more common to see "talk page" in discourse than "discussion page". Do international language versions of Wikipedia use the same word? In any case, it feels more natural and intuitive to use "talk" and I fully support the motion to change it doktorb wordsdeeds 07:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support for "talk". It should be labelled as what we call it to avoid completely unnecessary confusion (I'm thinking especially of non-native English speakers, as well as newbies who didn't get enough sleep last night) - and it's always called "the talk page".  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Talk- been waiting for this for a long time. New people only realizes it's the "talk page" after they click the tab and see the page is actually called the "talk page". Plus all our "informative"  pages call it "Talk page" like with Talk page guidelines - Help:Using talk pages - Talk page layout - Talk page templates. So lets not confuse our editors right off the bat when there reading introductory pages. Lets make it all match. Moxy (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have listed this proposal at Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. "Talk page" is a jargon term, which we should normally avoid in the UI. The name "discussion" is more accessible. But considering how likely it is that we'll change all the help pages, policy pages, and user comments to stop saying "talk pages" (read: will never happen), this is the more prudent alternative. Dcoetzee 09:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support "Discussion" makes a bit more sense especially to the newcomer than the (relatively vague) "talk", but "talk pages" is simpler and easier for most purposes. sonia ♫ 09:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. If I remember correctly, the tabs for the talk pages were labelled "Talk" when I joined the project. I think it was changed along with the switch from Monobook to Vector, and I think this particular change was based on the findings of the usability project. Apparently, we used to have a lot of readers who had no idea that Wikipedia articles have associated discussion pages and had no desire to try out the cryptic "Talk" tab. Hans Adler 13:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This was not as you describe. Some versions of Twinkle and Friendly used to include a script which changed the title of the "discussion" tab to "talk". This script was disabled a while back (around the time of the change to Vector). — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support Talk for the sake of consistency with namespace: Talk:Example suggests the link to Talk page. Calling things by their names is an important aspect of usability. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Paolo  Napolitano  16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose On the contrary, we should change the help, docs, etc. to speak of "discussion pages" rather than "talk pages". "Discussion" seems to make more sense as a descriptor, particularly for outsiders. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion name has already failed replacing the Talk name in general use. No need to revive dead. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tentative support, but also question for clarification: are we talking only about the link in the tab row at the top of each page, where it now says "Article | Discussion" or "Project page | Discussion", or is "Discussion" also found somewhere else? If it's only that one link, I'd go for changing it, for consistence with the actual namespace labels, but perhaps go for "Talk page" rather than plain "Talk". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just that tab link I believe, and the original proposer did say "talk page", although it's gotten a bit garbled along the way. sonia ♫ 22:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am the proposer and that is what I meant. "Talk" would be just as clear. I am glad the idea has support. What happens next? Do I have to request anyone in particular anywhere in particular to make the change? Or do I wait more time and then request? Or something else? Thank you everyone for understanding. (184.147.120.119 (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Here's what happens next. This change appears to have significant support, so this discussion has become a request for comment to get input from the broader community. It will run for 30 days gathering input. After the 30 days, somebody that hasn't participated in the dicussion will judge the consensus and close the discussion with a summary of what the community has decided. If there is consensus for the change, somebody will file a Bugzilla request to have the software changed to make the pages show talk instead of discussion. That may seem like a long time, but once started the process runs until it's completed. So you aren't required to do anything else, but you are certainly welcome to if you'd like to. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 04:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This does not require a bugzilla request or a software change. An admin can just modify Mediawiki:Talk to make the change. --Yair rand (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the info. (184.147.120.119 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Oppose The argument is flawed because in many pages, we tell users to look at the "discussion page". "Discussion" is much much more easy to understand than "talk" for a new user&mdash;what's a "talk page"? Do we call conference rooms "talk rooms" or forums "talk boards"? Discussion is more newbie-friendly; if we need to reword help pages, then we should do that to make it more sensible in the long run. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In which pages do we tell users to look at the "discussion page"? Thanks, &mdash;{&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;} 05:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC).
 * There are some that refer to the "discussion page", that is true. But there are far, far more that refer to the "talk page". Take a look around. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Discussion page" results, etc. Just because more pages use "Talk" over "Discussion" is no reason to change to "Talk". "Discussion" is far more understandable to new users&mdash;and that's what counts, no matter how many changes we have to make on our end. We must make Wikipedia simpler to understand and navigate for newbies. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  15:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, come on! Both talk and discussion describe the same process. The difference is too small. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. We should name it what we call it. Kaldari (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would absolutely love for this to happen. Absolutely.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: It would make sense to have consistency between what the tab's text is and what users refer to the page as. It seems to me that "talk page" is the common term, so if we are going to continue to use "talk page" in our comments, help and policy pages, templates, etc., then we should change the tab to say "talk" or "talk page" to achieve that consistency. If we are going to continue to have the tab say "discussion", then we should actually start calling the page to which it links the "discussion page" instead of the "talk page" in our comments, help and policy pages, templates, etc. Regards, &mdash;{&#124;Retro00064&#124;&#9742;talk&#124;&#x270D;contribs&#124;} 05:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Support "Talk" for consistency and clarity reasons. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 06:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The word talk is misleading because we don't talk there; we write. Readers might confuse this with an audio interface such as Siri. Warden (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is actually a good argument for renaming the whole talk namespace to discussion. Good luck getting consensus on that though. Yoenit (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I hadn't considered that: "talk" could give the misleading impression that it is possible to hear the article read out to you by clicking that tab. Make of that what you will, though. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support But "Talk", not "Talk page". The latter is ghastly. If you prefer "Discussion", I'm sure we can write some CSS/JS to give you the old style. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral If you are concerned about 'Talk' being an audio interface, then you could change the tab to Discuss, though it's not as friendly as Talk. Whatever is the consensus is fine, but I do agree that consistency is best either way. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for "Talk". Click on "Discussion", and what does it take you to? A page that has the title "Talk:Page" right there at the top. The proposal makes very good sense, per the principle of least surprise. I've also noticed when I talk to non-editors in real life that when I explain to them how we use talk pages, they ask me how they can find the talk page for a given article. I find that I have to tell them to click on "Discussion", and that's the way to get to "Talk". Admittedly, it's not that hard to figure out, but it really is more user-friendly to make this change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with comments - I agree that if someone wants to call their talk page something else its fine and that the default would be better as Talk page. However, it would be fairly easy to create a script to rename the page so an individual can call it whatever they want (i.e. talk, Talk page, discuss, etc). --Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support new, and especially foreign language editors are often confused about our nomenclature. We need to be consistent, and it's typically easier to change a label than to change what many people call them. Buddy431 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor for consistency, but then we should go with Discussion. It describes the function of the page much better than the vague 'Talk' . —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Fetchcomms is right, 'talk page' is not user friendly, actually it's such a weird name that if I were not a regular Wikipedia I would probably be confused as to what it means. In fact just a few days ago I changed my signature and talk page header from 'talk' to 'contact' for this reason. If the problem is the lack of consistency referring to the namespace, then the change is needed at the help page level, not in the display tabs. For what it's worth, I would support moving the namespace to ; in the meantime I will oppose changing the displayed tab to "talk page", as 'discussion' is much more straightforward.  CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 08:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many people at first do not know what "wiki" means, and they also learn what "talk page" means. -Wikid77 13:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that new users should just learn random things about how Wikipedia works before contributing? Just because people learn what "talk page" means later does not mean we should expect people to take the time to figure that out before they get impatient and just give up. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support "Talk". The menu option "Talk" is shorter than "Discussion" and the term "talk-page" provides a distinctive, while still short, name for such wiki-pages. A Google search for "talk-page" reveals it is closely linked (80%) to wiki websites, whereas a search for "discussion page" reveals wide, rambling use in many other websites, with no specific meaning as to what "discussion" entails. For over 6 years, many Wikipedia users have understood that a "talk-page" is not an open forum to blog about ideas; however, "discussion" might be imagined as a different type of page, perhaps open to blog-forum posts or other general discussions. Name the menu tab "Talk" to be more precise and avoid confusion. -Wikid77 13:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for the purpose of consistency, I support "talk". "Discussion" is overly long and the page is called a talk page, not a discussion page. We shouldn't rename the talk namespace to discussion though. Talk and Discussion have the same meaning, the only difference being "Discussion" is much longer lengthwise. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  17:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Classic skin (which doesn't have tabs) links to talk pages in the sidebar with the link Discuss this page. Would there be any change to this? &mdash; An  optimist on the run! 21:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Question How would this affect Monobook? I like the idea for the default skin, since it's simpler for people not already familiar with Wikipedia, but I prefer "discussion" for my own purposes simply because I'm accustomed to it.  Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "Talk" - as a volunteer in, I've found that many new users find it disorienting when we direct them to the "talk page". Often, the reaction is "Wait, where is that?" and we have to explain how "discussion" == "talk".  ~  Matthewrbowker   <sup style="color:#0000aa;">Say hi!  05:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Talk Per common name, common sense, it's shorter, it's more inviting, it's consistent with the namespace. A small step towards UI sanity. Ocaasit 07:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this obvious and long-overdue change. I don't know what caused it, but I'm impressed by the sudden outbreak of common sense in this thread. Robofish (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support talk An obviously good idea--why was this ever changed to "discussion?" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, although I also think its neither here nor there. Even if English is not your first language, if you can't find the "talkpage" by clicking on the word "discussion", you should probably think about whether editing Wikipedia is the best use of your time. --FormerIP (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, though I would support a broad effort to update references to "talk pages" to "discussion pages". Not sure on the namespace; I don't think keeping it "Talk" is necessarily confusing.  Powers T 19:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't mind informal mentions and references to talk pages, but changing the actual tab seems to imply (intentionally or otherwise) a morphing of the pages' purpose, to general debate about the article rather than for content development as it is now. That's an erosion of wp:NOTFORUM. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Talk - It's a common name, and it's more consistent with the namespace and what everyone calls it. Very rarely have I ever seen someone say "discussion page".--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support–It's not only far more commonly used, it's also the name of the namespace. "Discussion" does sound a bit more formal, but the consistency with most usage and with the namespace system makes it preferable to me. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I prefer keeping it "Discussion" especially for new readers and editors. In many dialects of English talk and discussion are not the same thing.  Discussion implies for many of us civil, rational analysis and discourse.  It is not surprising that in shorthand discussions talk is used more often than discussion; it is shorter.  That does not mean we should formally accept "Talk" as the default tab. There should be no problem in providing an optional display for those editors who wish to use a "Talk" tab.  But for new users "Discussion" is clearer and more appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, when we say "talk page" all the time, when several of the templates we use (such as Expert-subject) say "talk page", and when all the namespace names use the word "talk", it probably makes it confusing to new editors when the tab doesn't also say "talk". and while the second and third could be fixed, the first can't - both because we would need to go through all the pages in the Discussion: namespace, the User discussion: namespace, etc. to fix them, and since users are so used to using this term that they will keep doing so, even to new users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Neither term is precisely correct, and arguments could be made either way. "Discussion" is not precisely correct, because a user talk is not for discussing the user or the user page. It's important to keep things simple, and consistent. Any potential benefit of "discussion" being more clear than "talk" is lost through the constant confusion (new) users have, wondering what we mean by a "talk page". Especially when their own 'user talk' is called what it is. The word "talk" is short, snappy, matches the internals, and isn't all that mystifying. Keep it simple. I think this is a classic case where a 'usability study' did not truly consider all ramifications of a change - if we were designing a new mediawiki from scratch, we might go for 'discussion' - but we're not; "talk" is ingrained into our culture; it is unrealistic to change "talk" to "discussion" in every place (indeed, for historical discussion, it's effectively impossible). Changing "discussion" (tab) to "talk" is simple.  Chzz  ► 00:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - For consistency with the mainspace and with what we actually call it, and to be less confusing to newcomers. I think their nature won't change regardless of what is actually written on the tab, so no possible harm done. Zidanie5 (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support unless we are going to change the talk namespace to be a discussion name space. The current setup is unclear. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, since the page in question is always Talk: (or NamespaceName talk:), not Discussion:. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - greater consistency; less likely to cause confusion among newer users. Chris (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In simple, it makes sense. Here, no. theMONO 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, we talk about "talk pages", not "discussion pages". And the namespaces of these pages all use the word "talk", never "discussion". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Instead of changing the tab labels, we should rename the namespace from Talk to Discussion. Why? Because I think it is more natural to advice someone to participate in an article discussion by editing the discussion page and talk gives a stronger impression that the page is for general talk about the article topic. Should I make a counter proposal to rename the namespace? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I, personally, could only support that if you can also have all past discussions changed from "talk page" to "discussion page", and make sure that all Wikipedians, including those who happen to be on Wikibreak in paralell to the discussion, will use the word "Discussion page" in stead of "talk page" - and I don't think that you could do that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Strongly needed.  Rcsprinter  (gas)  16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per most of the other oppose reasons. That and I just like the way it is now. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ovbious Support. Well, yes. It seems obvious that some people who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, might say, "Talk page? Where's the talk page?" and all they would see is "Discussion". All I'm saying is that it seems obvious. <span style="text-shadow: 0 0 0.2em #8F7, 0 0 0.2em #8F7, 0 0 0.2em #8F7; color:#000">yrtneg  <span style="text-shadow: 0 0 0.2em #F87, 0 0 0.2em #F87, 0 0 0.2EM #f87;  color:#000">talk  <span style="text-shadow: 0 0 0.2em #87F, 0 0 0.2em #87F, 0 0 0.2em #87F; color:#ooo">contr  23:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I also oppose this in some matter, such as the word "discussion" being more, eh, mature than "talk". My vote is now neutral. <span style="text-shadow: 0 0 0.2em #8F7, 0 0 0.2em #8F7, 0 0 0.2em #8F7; color:#000">yrtneg  <span style="text-shadow: 0 0 0.2em #F87, 0 0 0.2em #F87, 0 0 0.2EM #f87;  color:#000">talk  <span style="text-shadow: 0 0 0.2em #87F, 0 0 0.2em #87F, 0 0 0.2em #87F; color:#ooo">contr  23:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Did nobody read two week ago's signpost, where it becomes clear that such inconsistencies are exactly (one of) the kind of difficulties newcomers are experiencing, or why is it that this is not mentioned a single time? Unfortunately, topics like these always result in wikiarguing, so I prefer abstaining from further input on this. Nageh (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * support duh. It is the talk page. Protonk (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To people seriously think that the tab being called discussion somehow elevates the level of discourse on the page? And that the solution is to change the namespace to "discussion"?  Even worse, are people serious in renaming both to "collaboration" or something likewise obfuscatory and multi-syllabic?!  That's pretty surprising, so I apologize for my incredulity.  It seems to be much easier to change the site CSS to say "talk" than change every single link and mention of the talk namespace in order to satisfy our sense of superiority.  The only cogent argument I can see against using "talk" is that it mischaracterized what actually goes on in talk pages--we don't "talk", we write.  But that seems needlessly pedantic.  I guess we can chalk this up to the community's willingness to accept the status quo because they are used to it, consequences for new users be damned. Protonk (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support That was one of my first questions when I discovered non-Mainspace Wikipedia. BTW, it's already done over at the Simple English Wiki. Zlqchn (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; discussion was never a good alternativ to talk - same problems. I suggest Collaboration - and change the Namespaces accordingly (I think we can set up a namespace redirect from Collaboration->Talk and change relevant links). Then make an effort to stop saying "talk page" :) --Errant (chat!) 13:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I oppose for reasons of dignity and the value of description. "Discussion" is a nicely dignified word, appropriate for the prominent position given to it on each article in this encyclopedia.  "Talk", in the sense of discussion, as opposed to exposition or demonstration, seems quite the opposite. And "discussion" is a better descriptor, in part because "talk" can only clearly have a sense which is general for the page.  Click on the "discussion" link and you are brought to a page which hosts a discussion, a particular discussion.  You are not brought to a page which hosts a talk, unless one takes "talk" in an obscure sense for such a usage. Even in the case of their general senses, "discussion" seems to be a better descriptor. What happens, or is supposed to happen, on the page, "discussion" accurately describes that; and that is a discursive conversation in any medium focused on a particular matter.   "Talk" can have a sense which can refer to such a thing by subsuming it under a more general heading, but as such it does not pick out it so specifically.  Lastly, "talk" having many other senses, if it is taken in these, it is prevented from referring to such as "discussion" does.  This last point has been partly illustrated above by others.--Atethnekos (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support—aside from consistency, it's more inviting to newbies to see a tab that says "talk". Tony   (talk)  10:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This would make things easier for new editors, and would have some consistency when linking to the talk page. And changing the name to something different than "disucssion" or "talk" and trying to get editors to change their habits is untenable. Let's call a spade and spade. Angryapathy (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: I found this slightly confusing when I first started editing, and I have seen cases of new users not understanding what the "Talk" page was or how to find it because it was labelled "Discussion". The pages are actually named "Talk:" in the urls, links, and search box. We could easily change any mentions of "Discussion" pages in the Help section etc to "Talk"; I think that a majority already refer to "Talk". If some people think that "Discussion" is clearer or sounds "better" I don't see that as rationale to leave the current fractured terminology the way it is. And it would be a whole lot easier to change everything to "Talk" than change everything to 'Discussion". And "Talk" is already the term most users use in posts. -MsBatfish (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support the use of "Talk:". It's confusing for new editors when they try to search for the talk page and all they find is "Discussion". In addition, FWIW, it has already been changed to "Talk" for User talk pages. — mc10 ( t / c ) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - There is no word that can make what happens on those pages dignified, we might as well be consistent. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It's a total usability howler to refer to the "Talk page" in policies, templates and communication from other users and not have a button marked Talk that the new users can click on. If we were to hire an expensive usability consultant, this is one of the first things they would tear us a new orifice over. Let's save the money and just change the label. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - I don't disagree with any of the arguments made by either side, but find myself ultimately preferring the present "Discussion". I will only say that *if* the tab is changed to Talk, a notice will need to be posted at the top of each talkpage clarifying that the purpose of the page is for discussion of the article and not "talk" in the sense of random back-and-forth chatter. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support. One of the most absurd issues with UI is that it labels elements by its own jargon distinct from the wiki parlance. But this was a WMF decision, so I'm not holding my breath any change in this area will happen. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "Talk". Continuity is a good thing. –Fredddie™ 06:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Talk is an informal version of Discussion. Talk also has multiple meanings, like lecture or speak, while discussion refers more to debate. and, we arent talking, we are writing. i know talk is now commonly used to refer to debate/discussion, but i prefer to keep the language precise. I do note that we have chosen "talk" as the term on Simple English. I wonder if other WP's use a word that is more informal or formal for their discussion pages. Oh, and i would prefer that we refer to Discussion rather than Talk in our guidelines (maybe do some global changes, to refer back to the original posters concern. I note most people prefer Talk: maybe im just old fashioned. Id tell you all to get off my lawn, but i noticed its not mine...:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support The tab should be the same as the name space. Talk is also more commonly used. WP:COMMONNAME applies to articles, surely it should extend to everything. Oddbodz (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This seems an obvious proposal, as people refer to 'the talk page', and also the pages themselves are headed Talk. Eldumpo (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support because it reflects language usage. The word "Talk" also takes up less screen space, reducing bunching in narrow browser windows. -- J N  466  14:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It is rather ridiculous there is no consistency between instructions and the tag. Everyone naturally uses 'talk', as demonstrated by the instructions they have written.Sandpiper (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:USE --Neo139 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I find 'discussion' to be a much more professional and accurate name, but I certainly concede that in common speak we most often use 'talk' anyways. 'Discussion' simply seems friendlier to new users, and I would certainly support assimilating it into regular use. Alas, cheers!    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 03:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Talk is more intuitive, given the existing convention of using it in templates, namespaces, guidelines, and in conversation. As an added bonus, talk is both a noun and a verb—click talk to “talk” on the talk page. To those who oppose because talk seems less "dignified" or "professional": read Protonk's comment. Braincricket (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Provides consistency, and is what the majority of users call the page anyway. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, that it's shorter, and also because they do it on the Simple English Wikipedia and it works just fine without confusion or loss of professionalism. Selery (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support 'Talk'. Clearer, matches current usage, and removes the erroneous implication that talk pages are for discussing the subject of the article (rather than the article itself). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Talk: As per Oddbodz WP:COMMONNAME seems relevant here. Mark Hurd (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk - this is their more common name anyway and easier for people to understand if their English is not native. This should be an easy simplification, though we might need a bot to make it happen.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.