User talk:Jeh/Archives/2017/11

WP:TALKNO
Per your advisory, I reviewed the linked WP:TALKNO guideline, and it says (quite clearly): "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." The line furthermore links to WP:NOTAFORUM, which I presented from my side, and which underlines that the comment does not belong there: Apart from being factually wrong (as I already reasoned in my edit summary), the comment yields no improvement to the article, just an attempted badmouthing of the company's software update behaviour (although it is AMD's). The same user tried to do the same on Google's talk page, amending that a faulty Samsung software update was a failure on Google's side. Furthermore, the title "Downfall" (in both cases) indicates criticism of the company, which again goes back to the NOTAFORUM guideline. Given this circumstance, keeping the comment is unreasonable, and I would appreciate if the dispute could be setteled by having the comment removed. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 23:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * True, the IP should not have posted it. But I don't see where WP:TPO gives you permission to delete others' talk page comments except in the most extreme cases. For stuff that's merely off-topic WP:TPO recommends hiding it with collapse. TPO does note that "it is still common to..." delete such material but that's not permission as I read it. Btw, please sign your talk page posts? Thanks. Jeh (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry about the forgoten signage (was in midst of rewriting an article). I see your point, however, I think it makes little sense to simply hide these kinds of posts, as they still act out the same (as means of starting an off-topic discussion), regardless if potential part-takers need to un-collapse it first, or not. This system could also be abusively used if multiple users proceeded to add off-topic threads, which would be collapsed, as such spanning a screen or two of "Downfall, this section has been collapsed | Downfall 2, this section has been collapsed | ... | Downfall {n}, this section has been collapsed", which would not make for proper talk page usage. IMO, comments such as these (knowingly spreading false information) do not belong anywhere, neither collapsed nor expanded, and should be removed. Do you see a good reason why they should be retained? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 23:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:TPO might not, but WP:NOTAFORUM clearly and explicitly does, and this has been the norm for years now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A lot of things could be abused, but "collapse" has been around for a long time and such usage would soon be reported and the participants blocked or etc.
 * Deleting someone else's comments outright is aggressive and uncivil, even if allowed by the rules. As a first response it is very rarely helpful in the long run, IME. For a transgression like this one I prefer responding on the talk page, citing TALKNO, etc., and also pointing out the problems in the OP's points. Also leave a template message on their talk page. If the OP persists then it's time for collapse or even deletion (especially if the OP turns abusive, which often happens). Please consider these points and do what you want to do - it's on your head.
 * btw although AMD writes AMD's drivers (with help from MS), if the updated driver was released as part of an MS update then MS should have verified it and should have caught such a bad bug. Ditto if it's not released as part of an MS update but is WHQL-signed. If it's just an update that appeared on AMD's site without WHQL signage then indeed MS has no responsibility. Jeh (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The customary response, in addition to removal, is posting on the poster's talk page outlining why their post wasn't appropriate and next steps. But we don't need such posts on the talk page itself and removals for NOTAFORUM have been the norm for years. If you want to change that, your recourse is WP:VPP.
 * On a technological note, it's simply impossible to verify the compatibility of a given driver with every conceivable system configuration.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Quotation marks vs. italics
"use of italics (or bold) for branding and slogan is not supported by WP:MOS. They're quotations, they get quote marks, the end. Please desist" That's not the way it is at other TV station articles. And there's nothing in the Manual of Style that says brands and slogans need quotation marks. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * They ARE quotations, so per MOS:QUOTE they get quote marks whether or not they are brands or slogans. And nothing else, because nothing in MOS:BOLD or MOS:ITALIC supports their use for slogans or brands. See e.g. MOS:NOITALQUOTE. Unless it's in a foreign language, in which case italics and quotes are called for. As for other TV station articles, there is very little consistency. Some use italics, some use bold, some use quotes, some use various combinations, and some use nothing at all. As a result you will be able to find numerous examples of just about any style you care to defend. Accordingly I am correcting the other radio and TV station articles to bring them into compliance with WP:MOS, i.e., quotes only except for foreign language words. Jeh (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)