Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 7

Educators Use of Twitter
Does anyone have an idea of how many K - 12 educators are using twitter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.184.239 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably a question best posted at the WP:REFDESK. –xenotalk 19:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Signature shorthand for the typing impaired
Is there a shorthand way to make a signature similar to the way four tildas makes a date stamp? How to make a signature should be easier to find. 17:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * never mind GE (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No Personal Viewpoints, Please.
The lead section needs to be more clear, and the guideline as a whole more consistently supportive of on just what is meant by "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." It can too easily sound absurd. It is so alone. The fact that it is in bold in the lead paragraph all by itself begs me to try to defend it.

Wiktionary defines "opinion" as "A thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue." That person is not you! The purpose of the talk page is ??? Therefrom I quote: And that is what the talk page would seem to be when you actually visit them.
 * "reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation"
 * "explain your views; ...voice an opinion on something and ... explain why"
 * "convincing others and reaching consensus"

Q. Why the bold statement "no personal views"?

A. It's a highly advanced theory of communication for highly advanced beings, and I've yet to sense it on a talk page. It's buried in the Stay objective section: (edited here) A viewpoint is not a personal view, it's an objective view. Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how a viewpoint obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral, and has an objective tone (which means it includes conflicting viewpoints). Bolding mine. These ideas, they are mine, and I get to write them on discussion pages like the guideline doesn't clarify. Q. They are not my personal view, they're my objective view. Don't we all have objective consciousness? Don't we all speak the truth on discussion pages? A. Best not to think so on Wikipedia anywhere. Someone else got to be cited, not me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. (And if it was anything less, it would be an "enCITEobedient", not an "inPSYCHOphilia.)

I will continue to answer my own questions by editing the talk guideline towards and watching for any kind of response here. Cp i r al  Cpiral  05:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * definition and consistency of terms
 * better integration with WP:CITE and WP:NPOV
 * a more conciliatory and explanatory tone


 * Unnecessary bold removed; I hope this clarifies.  Ty  18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor's names
Talk_page_guidelines discourages addressing editors by name in talk page headers. It's presumably trying to discourage ==John is an idiot== or ==John, please discuss your changes== kinds of headings. I saw it recently misunderstood as meaning that userids should never be present in headers, which is a problem for most of the noticeboards, which use these guidelines as a model.

Is it worth saying something like "This doesn't apply to noticeboards" or "Some discussion and administrative pages, such as WP:RFC/U and WP:ANI frequently include editors' names in headers"? Or even "Including editors' names in headers may be acceptable if it's done in a neutral or positive fashion (e.g., ==Thanks, John==)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It already says, "Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators."  Ty  05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's a case of reading the third bullet, and skipping the fourth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also noticeboards are not actually "talk pages" as such.  Ty  05:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate response to comments airing personal views?
The article is clear that talk pages are not to be used merely as platforms to air personal views on the article's subject. So when someone goes ahead and does it anyway, what is the appropriate response? Deletion? Contacting them and politely requesting removal, as per the guideline for uncivil comments? Report to administrator?

Look at this example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slavery_(Ottoman_Empire). The fellow is not particularly uncivil, yet the comment clearly has nothing to do with improving the article and is simply airing the editor's personal views. What to do?Pirate Dan (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The example linked has disappeared. Off topic posts can be removed with a suitable explanation, or retained with a comment underneath as to the inappropriateness of the post and a request to desist from further such posts. Often the editor is unaware of WP:TPG, so a link to it and a note on the editor's talk page can be helpful.  Ty  18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Pirate Dan (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yelp
How do I talk to anyone on my posts about Yelp? I have tried different approached but do not get any response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noopyman (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WELCOME is a good starting place regarding how to edit Wikipedia. Discussions about the Yelp article in particular may take place at Talk:Yelp, Inc., where I have responded in detail to your proposal.  However, as I've cautioned you, Wikipedia is not a place to bring personal grievances against a business.  There are a number of thresholds that proposed content must pass in order to be suitable for the encyclopedia.  Content must be verifiable to a reliable source.  It must be neutral in it's point-of-view, and of due weight.  It must be encyclopedic in content and tone and not gossipy, salacious, informal or tabloid-like.  Also, please review the warnings on your talk page regarding edit warring, and the links there to policy pages.  I have given you a final warning to stop edit warring on that article.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the correctness of this article
Post by 166.179.113.151 (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC) removed. It should go on an article talk page, not here.  Ty  08:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet comments
Any thoughts? A user has just been blocked for the use of sockpuppets. Four of his identities were used to simulate consensus in an RfC on a talk page.

That user has earned a one month block for his actions, and an indefinite ban on the sockpuppet accounts.

Am I within my rights to remove the comments? Sumbuddi (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You could also just strikethrough. Dlabtot (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * True. Part of the issue with the comments was that the RfC had got very long and complicated as a consequence of the sock puppeting, and it was difficult to follow for those with no prior involvement. Hence 'de-cluttering' the high volume of sock puppet comments. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Two pages
Seems weird to have two guidelines, one called Talk page and the other called Talk page guidelines. Please see my suggestion at WT:Talk page as to how this might be sorted out.--Kotniski (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the comments of others at an article talkpage
The section on the above issue contains a summation, bolded, towards the top of the section. It states the general rule about not deleting other people's comments at an article talkpage. Following this is an explanation about how the rule specifically applies, and what exceptions can be made to the general rule. As the "general rule" portion was removed for several hours on 24 October, I thought perhaps it might be necessary to open a discussion here. I've also added a similarly explanatory comment as a hidden note behind the bolded summation. U A  00:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make any sense to have a rule that says in big bold letters Don't do X, and then follow it by a long list of situations when it's OK to do X. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Outlining certain specific exceptions to the rule is relatively standard in any documentation of rules, not just wikirules. Having a short summary of the general rule is also pretty standard. What caused my initial confusion as to whether I was even right about the general rule I thought was in place, when I restored the comments to Talk:Garth Paltridge, was the fact that you removed the summary 19 minutes after I left the note at WMC's page regarding the situation. U  A  00:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that people latch onto the big, sweeping statement in bold type and don't bother to look at the nuances that come later. If a statement of the general rule really is necessary it needs to be qualified and not so sweeping. Qualify the wording, and for "Bob"'s sake get rid of the boldface. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, your changes have improved things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made another, relatively minor change as well. I think it was after you posted this here. U  A  00:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bold and capitals
I like to use bold or capital letters to show important emphasis of points, usually specific words and rarely entire phrases and almost never an entire sentence, unless I am emphasising a previously stated statement or phrase that was misquoted or misrepresented by another side. I do not believe italics represent the same degree as bold or capital letters are "shouting" or "ranting". I am too old to A- understand why, B- care one bit, why the younger generation that is now growing up with twittering, ims, email, etc that I did not have consider such markup to be "shouting" or "ranting", such tween ideas should stay away from a serious endeavor such as Wikipedia. Excessive use or use in a disruptive manner, sure I can see it being discouraged, but let us now have this page say that this is the use of bold and capital letters and you cant write like that. That is censorship and not what Wikipedia is about. I am not going to write with little slang like LOL and little emoticons, I am not going to change my style, and after over 3 years on Wikipedia I suddenly got accused of "yelling", I'm not even talking, how does bold or capital letters "hurt" the eyes as yelling can hurt the ears? It cant and capital letters are older and the original forms of letters, so lower case are the newbies btw, so I dont see how they are "harder" to read, or harsher to the eyes or brain. We arent children. What ever happened to Assume good faith, if someone puts bold or capital letters then they should be given AGF in that they are using them in a non-offensive manner, not as "shouting". I for one wont be treated as a teenager.Camelbinky (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, if no one wishes to comment I'll go ahead and be bold about changing the wording on the bold and capitals section.Camelbinky (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted. The the guidance in the text has been a long standing consensus.  Ty  17:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, you and anyone else didnt comment here. So I was bold per my right. Just because something is long standing doesnt make it law (WP:NOTSTATUTE). Consensus changes and the wording does not reflect accurately why editors use bold or italics. This very guideline is being broken every single day (and every hour by me). It doesnt reflect consensus. If you had a problem, you had ample time to comment. I'm putting it back. Reverting based on "that's they way its been for awhile" is not a legitimate debating point. This is a wiki. Do you have a legitimate reason why it should stay or are you just conservative in viewpoint?Camelbinky (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left Camelbinky's change atm, but I am distinctly uneasy with the change and rather hope that the original will be restored, or something close to it. As the box at the top says, the page is a guideline, best treated with common sense and occasional exceptions. Those words allow plenty of occasional bolding, where appropriate. Undoubtedly it is unintentional, but the new words will delight every crank and troll who wants to bold the phrases that they think you did not understand. Flashing signatures and bold phrases are great for the person who wants their message to stand out from the crowd of dreary blandness written by other contributors, but they should not be encouraged (I'm talking about what other editors may do, not Camelbinky). Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand Johnuniq's well-thought out comments and appreciate them and agree that cranks may take it too far. BUT does that mean the rest of us, who use bold, italics, and capitals correctly and only for emphasis must listen to those who disagree with us claim "your being uncivil by using bold and italics. Please stop yelling." That is what happened to me recently by someone who disagreed with me and thought calling me uncivil was a good way to "win" the argument. Perhaps Johnuniq we can have a compromise between the old wording and my proposal? One that makes it clear that it can be used and I'd like to remove any mention that they are considered "yelling"; the old wording was too much of an insult to the older generation and makes Wikipedia look silly and tweenish in my opinion. I understand this is a guideline and must be used with common sense, but as soon as you find common sense on Wikipedia (and good luck) I think some things like this need to be rewritten due to the lack of such a thing being implemented by those who think policies and guidelines are "laws" and adhered to by the letter (as the person who accused me of being uncivil believes they are; using the common sense argument with him (her?) wouldnt work). I would like to thank Johnuniq for his time in commenting and working with me on this, it is greatly appreciated. I hope a compromise that addresses my concern can be found.Camelbinky (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the following: Avoid excessive markup: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice. Italics may be used more frequently for emphasis or clarity on key words or phrases, but should be avoided for long passages. Remember that overuse of markup can undermine its impact. If adding emphasis to quoted text, be sure to say so. Italics can also be used to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles, ship names, etc. Rd232 talk 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like everything exept the mentioning of "shouting". Can we please not treat Wikipedia like a tween twittering account? Other than that I can live with the rest, but am not happy with italics seeming to be more acceptable, I believe bold and italics should be interchangeable in meaning, but in a compromise I cant expect to be totally satisfied and will live with it. (Oh, and most and usually is redundant, I would drop the "most")Camelbinky (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is a guideline and it should not mislead people. If someone uses caps for emphasis it is likely (with some exceptions) that most other editors will think they are completely misguided. Capital letters are considered shouting, regardless of what this page says, so the page should include that information as a service to anyone reading it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because teenieboppers think it is? Many of us are old enough that we dont consider capitals shouting. What books are you reading that use capital letters as representative of shouting? Some may do so now, but it rarely is the case even today to represent shouting with capital letters; a real author uses words to describe, not such crude representation as capital letters. I've used boldness twice and italics once in this very post. Do you think I was raising my voice when I said "books", "some", or "real" if I was speaking to you instead of writing, or do you think that I would have been putting "emphasis" in my speach instead of raising my voice when I said those words? Emphasis does not equal yelling. It is a misrepresentation of what is meant when people use boldness or italics. Yes, capitalization should be discouraged, I am with you on that; it just doesnt look good and bold or italics do a better job. But calling it shouting is misleading and making this seem less academic and more tweeny; cant we get the point that its not good etiquette without using the words "shouting"?Camelbinky (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What books do you use to communicate with other people all around the world? The last time I check, this was the internet, and for the two decades I have been using the internet, typing in all caps has been viewed as SHOUTING.  Changing the guideline to reflect one person's stylistic opinion is not going to change that fact for the other 1.7 billion internet users in the world.  — Kralizec! (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kralizec your revert and your comment are both not helpful nor constructive. If you have an opinion then please make it and work towards a compromise as everyone else here has been doing. We are actually close to making one. If you dont want to help and simply want to keep the status quo for the sake of the status quo then you've made your opinion known, let those that are working towards something work. For now I'll put in Rd's compromise as that is the one that seems to have everyone's backing. Thank you for your opinion Kralizec!. Oh, and you've been typing on the internet since 1989 have you? That's impressive... though an exageration as the www didnt go beyond scientific community until 1991, and chatrooms and other communicative forums for lay people were even later; I was in fact one of the earliest to use what would later become the "Internet" and it wasnt until the mid 90s at the earliest that I saw any such mention of the stylistic opinion that capitals are "yelling" and again- it was by teenagers! We are not a chat room or social networking site and our stylistic options and opinions are different than that of the 1.7 billion other internet users who use it for a different purpose than we do. We are a serious academic endeavor. Has a professor ever told you he considers bold or italics to be "yelling"?Camelbinky (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CAPITALS = SHOUTING IS WELL ESTABLISHED NETIQUETTE. See eg this story about a woman being fired. Constantly using bold or other emphasis to underline your points is a touch below SHOUTING but it is quite annoying when OVER USED. Your personal opinion may differ (probably driven by experience in print), but these are the general customs for online communication and you have to live with that. Bold, incidentally, is more eye-catching than italics when scanning the page, which is the standard way people read things on screen (less so in print), and hence is "louder". Mmkay? Rd232 talk 09:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your changes to the guideline because we are still discussing the issue, and it is preferable for the guideline to reflect the previous consensus while the debate continues, rather than your bold opinions. As a matter of reference, I fully support Rd232`s proposed compromise text, including the bit about shouting being virtually never appropriate.  Also, not that it has any real bearing on this discussion, but my "two decades" of internet use is a reference to accessing Usenet via BITNET at the university I started at in 1991 ... so I guess you got me as 1991 was only 18.9 years ago.  Regardless, you should check your ad hominem attacks on "tweens" and "teenieboppers" at the door, and as WP:NPA advises, "comment on content, not on the contributor." — Kralizec! (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What problem are you (Camelbinky) trying to solve? Is anyone preventing you from expressing yourself because of the wording of this guideline? The advantage of Kralizec's opinion is that it just happens to coincide with the consensus view, and the established text in the section under discussion. There is no reason to change the text, although Rd232's proposal does look attractive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'problem' that Camelbinky is trying to solve is another editor recently criticising him for 'shouting' in an edit summary. It's obvious that there is consensus for the view that capitals=shouting, and it is long-established internet practice; nothing to do with tweens, twitter or whatever else Camelbinky suggested. I support the changes proposed above by Rd232. --hippo43 (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hippo43, you finally outed yourself for harrassment. You have now proven you have been watching my talk page and following me to other locations where I am involved in discussions and activities. I was "warned" for "shouting" LONG AFTER this discussion began, but only after that was posted on my talk page did you show up here. I am now bringing you to ANI for this wikistalking. You've crossed the line and I finally found proof you are following me around. I will not stand for this continual harrassment at article talk pages and now here.Camelbinky (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With that out of the way- I'd like to point out that, while I dont like that capitals are considered "shouting" my original problem was with bold and italics, to which from the start I was quite clear the reason I was bringing this up is that in a discussion someone said that my use of a bolding a short phrase was "yelling" and against this guideline; I had never heard that before so I came here. I didnt agree with the wording so brought it up. No one responded, so I changed the wording. Then people reverted, so I asked them to instead of reverting to talk to me here on a compromise. Rd232 was nice enough to come up with a compromise that would address my concern. At no point was my issue about capitals; I believe I even stated I could understand that; however I wasnt pleased with the word "shouting"; and I still believe a less tweeny term would be better. I do my editing at work, my work requires most things to be entered in capitals thus I have capslock on generally; during a heated post in the middle of a different policy talk page discussion I had the capslock on and typed my edit summary, it was in capitals, a non-involved editor chastised me instead of giving me good faith and asking about it; Hippo saw that and has involved himself in that discussion and of course here claiming that recent "warning" is what brought me here, even though I personally started this discussion weeks prior to that. So I have brought him to AN/I for his continued wikihounding of my talk page and any other locations I go to that he sees through my talk page. I wanted that cleared up about his post. As for Rd232's proposal, I want it clear to Hippo43 that there wouldnt have been that proposal if I hadnt voiced my concern, so this idea that Rd232's proposal is in opposition to mine is ridiculous, it is a compromise that he/she was nice enough to take time to craft concerning my issues.


 * If "attacks on tweens" is attacking any particular contributor I apologize that someone feels I'm attacking them personally; I am too old of a person to be treated and forced to type like a teenager, and it is my opinion that bold and italics as "shouting" is indeed a teenage idea (and just as baggy pants hanging off the ass has catched on to more than just teens, same with emoticons, LOL, LMFAO, and other slang; just because a teen idea catches on doesnt make it any less a common sense idea for some older people). Hippo cant speak for my motives. Only I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelbinky (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 November 2009
 * "I do my editing at work, my work requires most things to be entered in capitals thus I have capslock on generally"... wow, what on earth kind of work is that?? You should probably put it on your userpage or something to let people know of this very unusual circumstance! :) Anyway I've implemented my suggestion from above, and I think we can consider this thread closed (if there is a need for dispute resolution between you and Hippo, it clearly should not happen here). Rd232 talk 02:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rd232, and I do data entry for hotel accounts, most of which requires capitals when putting in letters (caps lock doesnt affect numbers) and its actually easier doing the work to have the caps lock on and use the shift key when I do a lowercase. I never saw the need to put it on my user page as I think personal stuff is personal and Wikipedia should be for Wikipedia. As for Hippo its at AN/I being taken care of.Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for answering my question. I didn't mean you need to put that on your user page, but indicating your use of caps lock might be helpful if it occasionally stays on when it shouldn't. Rd232 talk 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wrote an article; the article was published by the Mesa Verde Museum Association. This organization made know changes to the article. The article was based on my original research from government archives. It contains no copyrighted material. Do I need the publishers permission to use in Wikipedia.

Who owns the copy right? Irvdiamond (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent change to lede
I've partially reverted the recent change to the lede discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_7. "...evaluating the use of information derived from secondary sources" is only a small part of the proper use of a talk page. Talk pages are the primary forum for in-depth discussions to build consensus for disputes regarding the associated article. This is already partially stated in the first sentence of the lede. If any elaboration is necessary, it should more accurately summarize the rest of this guideline, possibly referring to WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Active editing
Please clarify the status of the page Active editing. Is it "essay", "policy proposal", "historical"? Otherwise just linking it into a guideline is a confusion. I commented it in "see also", but the page still needs a header about its statrus. Mukadderat (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Do not threaten people"
This seems poorly worded, since most template warnings, e.g. for vandalism contain an explicit threat of blocking. Pcap ping  15:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A warning is not a threat. Dlabtot (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Exception for fixing links goes too far
I saw that a user had been editing the remarks of others on talk pages, with edit summaries like "fix link to redirect" and such. I was going to warn him about it, but I thought I'd better check here. To my surprise, it enumerates an exception for changing links to pages that have moved.

I think this is incorrect. As a practical matter it's not needed anyway, because when a page moves, a redirect is left, and links to redirects are just fine. As a matter of principle, one editor should not be second-guessing another editor's intent as to where he chooses to link. I agree that reformatting should be allowed, but changing links, in my opinion, should not. --Trovatore (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you refer to this text under "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments":


 * Disambiguating or fixing links (if the linked-to page has moved, or a talk page section has been archived, or the link is simply broken by a typographical error, for instance).
 * It mentions the word "moved" but given the context, I take it to only apply to cases where links currently don't lead to the intended place when you click it. Did the editor replace redirects with the current target of the redirect? That sounds wrong. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Talk page the same as Discussion page
The idea of having a talk page/discussion page with every article is very wise. However, when I started with Wikipedia there was a talk page for every article. Now there is a Discussion page. For beginners to have two words for the same thing is confusing, especially within all the texts regarding Wikipedia. Hugten (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. When the word on the tab was changed we should've clarified terminology use in documentation and policies too. I've added mention of this in the intro here, to start. There may be other places where this is needed, to clarify things for beginners. Equazcion  ( talk ) 17:23, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Archiving recommendations
Currently the section When pages get too long says:
 * Older browsers can accommodate only 32KB in edit boxes, so anything larger can be too long for those who use them. Otherwise, a guideline to consider a page as long is when it exceeds 50 topics.

From my experience topics on discussions seldom are less than several KB, and this 32KB or 50 topics is somewhat inconsistent. I would suggest rewriting it to recommend a larger file size, a smaller number of topics (say 10) and an explicit recommendation to delete older topics. Something like:
 * Large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. A page should be archived or refactored either when it exceeds 50 KB; has more than 10 main topics, or has topics more than two years old.

Since this adds time as well as length as a factor, perhaps the section heading should be changed from "When pages get too long" to something like "When to condense pages" Comments please --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two years is a ridiculously long period of time for a Talk: page discussion to hang around. The Talk: page is intended for current discussions, not ancient discussions, or resolved issues. Archives are where the latter go. I've modified the text to the more sensible "4 months old." Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've modified it to be even more sensible, as follows:
 * "Large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 50 KB; has more than 10 main topics, or has topics that have had no responses in over four months."
 * If a talk page discussion is still active after two years, then it probably shouldn't be archived. On the other hand, if a discussion has had no responses in four months, then it is resolved, and should be archived. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your opinion, but it disagrees with the long-standing view that talk pages are also the place where editors new to an article can find guidance on issues that have been discussed and resolved. I'm reverting for now pending further discussion.  Old discussions on the page make it clear when it really isn't necessary to bring up an old issue once again and, when there are less than ten topics on a page, two years is not a ridiculous length of time to keep them visible.
 * --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) edited 14:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're going to "revert for now pending discussion", then I'll remove all advice regarding how long the material should stay, since you just added it this week, based on a discussion you had with yourself. Jayjg (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK for now; at least it's better than the old recommendation to archive when a page reaches 50 topics or 32 Kb. Surely we can't be the only two people interested in this.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I often see users replying to posts that are several years old, sometimes reviving the discussion, sometimes not. Either way, the age of the post shouldn't make that user's comments irrelevant or obsolete, and until LiquidThreads or something better comes along, I think we should keep the older posts and let the size of the page determine whether to archive or not, rather than the age of the post. -- &oelig; &trade; 22:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I often see user replying to posts several years old, whose authors have long since left the discussion, the page, and often Wikipedia. The age of a post does often make a user's comment irrelevant or obsolete, as so many things about Wikipedia may have changed in the interim, not the least of which is the contents of the article itself. Since searching archives is so easy today, given all the tools available, we should let obsolete or concluded discussions be archives, since that is exactly what archives are for - non-current information. Jayjg (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to come around to Jayjg's point of view, since searching archives is a lot easier than it used to be, but OlEnglish's comment is especially germane. Archived pages are not to be changed; that's what archiving means.  If a long-term discussion is to be reopened, that requires opening a new discussion section, which results in the discussion being scattered over two (or more) places.  That, in my opinion, is an extremely strong argument in favor of making page size, rather than age, determine when to remove old sections.
 * Large pages are seldom a problem. There's no problem going to the bottom of the page to find new topics; there's no problem using the table of contents to find general topics; there's no problem using a word search to find more specific items.  There's no reason to condense talk pages (except perhaps for a matter of personal taste) until they get so large that they're difficult to load.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When you reply to someone who is no longer editing Wikipedia, about text that has changed in the interim, you are not having a "discussion". And large pages are indeed a problem for people (such as those in the third-world) who do not have access to broadband internet. Jayjg (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if the original poster is no longer editing.. many others can still read the reply and choose to join in and revive discussion of the subject with or without the original poster. And large pages of text are not a problem for dial-up users, it's just text and loads very quickly. -- &oelig; &trade; 06:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "And large pages of text are not a problem for dial-up users, it's just text and loads very quickly." huh? untrue. Text adds up just like any other form of data. Dlabtot (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've used a 33.6k dialup modem to access the internet for years, and although I've never accessed Wikipedia back then, as I remember it, web sites which contained only a page of text downloaded much faster than those sites crammed with images and flashy graphics. Plus, I may be wrong here, but isn't it true that dialup modems compress text 'on-the-fly' so it loads quicker? whereas most images are already in compressed form. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that text is still data; if you keep adding text without ever archiving, eventually the file will grow large. It's simple math. If you keep adding pennies to your purse eventually it will be too heavy to carry. Even if each one is only a penny. Dlabtot (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why I said we should let the size of the page determine whether to archive or not, not the age of the posts. I never said we should never archive. But the original point was if a large page of text loads quickly for dialup users, and of course limited to a certain size, not an endless stream of text. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The notion that a point raised by someone who is not currently active on Wikipedia -- or even is not currently alive -- is not relevant to a discussion has a very limited historical perspective. Questions over issues endure, and ideas raised by past participants in a discussion can contribute to the ongoing discussion. Loading time seems to be emerging as the essential issue, and I have no problem with setting a recommended maximum size for Talk pages. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to give guidance to new editors on the current consensus on contentious issues, a FAQs section at the top is probably going to work better than expecting them to read through all the back-and-forth of a lot of old discussions. Anyway, even after archiving they can still be read and referred to. In my view, keeping sections around months after discussion has ceased just clutters up the page.
 * —WWoods (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On first glance, a FAQ section might work, but it raises two questions:
 * The most practical is who is going to do the work to convert the existing discussion into a FAQ.
 * More problematic is that the FAQ could degenerate into a place for a second order debate over issues over which there is still disagreement.
 * After consideration, I don't think a FAQ is workable. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

References on talk pages
It is common on talk pages to discuss text copied from the article or proposed drafts, either of which may contain footnotes. There are only two ways that I am aware of to make the footnoted citations visible. One way is to reformat each one to remove the tags. Its disadvantages are that it is harder to reader, more tedious to add, and error-prone. The other is to add a section at the bottom of the page. (A better solution might be to add the references following the text, but {reflist} gets confused if there are more than one on a page). The disadvantage to having a references section at the end is that it has to be moved back to the end whenever a new thread with footnotes is started, and it confuses veteran Wikipedians accustomed to looking to the bottom of the page for new threads. Thoughts?  Will Beback   talk    21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you tried the trick described in Template:Reflist ? Eubulides (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Just what I was going to suggest. Let's see - where have I done this? Talk:Hawkhurst Branch Line is one, although in the end we didn't need more than one reflist. But it does use the abovementioned 1 technique. I'm sure I've done it elsewhere. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ? –Whitehorse1 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this input. I hadn't known of the multiple uses trick. I take it no one objects to the idea of having a reference section, either at the bottom or tied to the section where text is being edited.   Will Beback    talk    23:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * At the Talk:List of vegetarians, we use   tags.  Kayau  Don't be too CNN   I'LL DO MY JOB   uprising! uprising! 03:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done that too, but the end result is obviously unformatted and if there are citation templates then it's even harder to read. Here's a {reflist|close=1} example:

''This text has two different citations. ''


 * Anyway, perhaps it would be worth writing a line or two for this guideline listing these suggestions.   Will Beback    talk    10:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've used above text with references inserted on talk pages to invisibly purge references from prior talk page sections. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Streisand effect for a talk page with several instances of . -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Example using :


 * Earlier talk page section
 * this line has an unrelated ref
 * Talk page section with
 * some text with a ref


 * References


 * Example using


 * Earlier talk page section
 * this line has an unrelated ref
 * Talk page section with
 * some text with a ref


 * References


 * Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, the 1 method does rely on there being no instances of with no parameters at all. But at least it is documented on the template's page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no reason whatsoever to use footnotes on talkpages. Simply none. Talkpages are for discussing articles. Say what you have to say in a threaded discussion and do without footnotes and other gimmicks. --dab (𒁳) 12:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But what about the times when I want to suggest an article improvement by way of sample pieces of text, and want to show where I got my info from? There are some GAs and FAs where a small group of editors pretend to WP:OWN the article; if I were to put my text and refs direct into the article, they may get reverted, so almost any change needs talk page discussion first - what better way than to put my proposal, with references, on the talk page? Also, what if I want to demonstrate a referencing technique to somebody who is unsure? -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Including references in the discussion does happen and can be conducive when hammering out dusputed content. I recently proposed changing to reflist-talk to include and some other changes. See Template talk:Reflist-talk. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Confused homophones
When a poster confuses an English language homophone the result is that the meaning that is read is not what the poster intended. Unlike most typos such an error cannot be caught by a spell checker, only by an observant reader. Examples of homophone pairs. I have added a guideline that one should not edit homophones in the posts of others on Talk or Ref. Desk pages. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * its it's
 * their there they're
 * your you're