Forum:CT:Talk page policy, second attempt

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Adopt Policy; Add policy link to Welcome template. JangFett ^(Talk) 23:08, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

---

After the failure of Forum:CT Archive/Talk page policy, this is my second attempt. A few changes have been made to the proposed policy, currently located at User:Master Jonathan/Talk page policy, to appease the majority who opposed the first CT. The most notable of these changes was redefining off-topic posts as comments that can be removed without archiving. As a compromise for those, including myself, who still see no reason to remove off-topic posts, a footnote has been appended to that item suggesting, but in no way requiring, that users give consideration to keeping the post if circumstances allow. All changes between the last CT and now can be viewed in this diff.

The following paragraph is copied from the previous CT and still applies to this proposal without change:

As part of that proposal, {{Talkheader}} will be updated to link to the new policy and summarize key points, including at least the rules about not editing others' comments and encouraging users to create a new thread to reply to an old thread. As the talkheader template would merely explain the policy instead of being the policy itself, I am not proposing exact wording and will leave the wording to the discretion of the administrator closing this thread and anyone else he/she wishes to obtain input from or delegate the task to.

In addition to that, I forgot to mention in the previous CT that links, which may possibly involve slight rewording to draw attention to them, should also be added to {{msg-talk}}, {{msg-talkr}}, and {{msg-talka}}. A separate vote is below to determine whether it is necessary to add this policy to the list of policies in the welcome template. —MJ— _{Council Chambers} 05:15, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Prop 1: Adopting the policy

Support

1. As proposer. —MJ— _{Council Chambers} 05:15, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
2. This is better -- keeping off-topic posts is allowable (especially if they're just barely off-topic), but shouldn't be mandatory. —Silly Dan _(talk) 16:18, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
3. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 16:32, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
4. I remember times when I've notified someone that their post was off-topic and should be taken to the KB where they later responded that they were really trying to say something else that was actually on-topic. They phrased it so that it was a statement, not a proposed change to the article. Sometimes, you could see the change was vaguely implied when they pointed it out to you; other times, you couldn't see any connection. However, when prompted to phrase it correctly, they did so, and sometimes (that same nebulous "sometimes" that goes with any talk page posts) the change was actually quite beneficial. I support MJ's revised version, yet I still hope that outright reversions won't be the most popular response to off-topic posts. They aren't truly problems. They're just made by people who don't understand—yet, at that—and there are better ways to help them with that than wiping away what they tried to do to help Wookieepedia and leaving a pre-generated message. NaruHina ^Talk 18:39, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
5. After consideration, I like the compromise. I think we can all use good sense and determine which off-topic posts warrant a response and which ones don't. As I said in the last CT, there's a large difference between "Why aren't there any Mandalorians in the New Republic era?" and "OMG I love Mandoz!!" Responding to the former with a polite reminder of the talkheader is harmless, but if this CT passes, even I'll be happy with reverting the latter. Menkooroo (talk) 00:16, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
6. I am satisfied with this compromise. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:08, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
7. Seems pretty good. Cade Calrayn 19:10, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
8. Agreed. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 23:37, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
9. --Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 06:23, August 5, 2013 (UTC)
10. CC7567 ^(talk) 20:38, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
11. Per above comments and Master J's outline (excellently put together, sir). Also, {{Msg-talkc}} is an appropriate template to reference, because it specifically covers editing/altering another editor's Discussion/Talk Page comments—which I have seen happen. These were, of course, not cases that fell into one of the exceptions listed in the outline by MJ. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 19:36, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
12. Looks fine to me. 1358 ^(Talk) 19:05, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. See my comments below. I am willing to change, but I see long-term issues. JangFett ^(Talk) 17:57, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Heh. Per what I said before minus the admin speculation portion. The compromise is kind of "blah." I still have problems with section five and six of the proposal. Fe Nite (talk) 20:18, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about Prop 1

• As I said in the previous CT (also I highly agree with Fe Nite's comments), I'm really wary of keeping or even considering commenting to off-topic posts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this CT about standardization/keeping things consistent? Why should some comment when some might just revert the off topic post? MJ, I find deleting the off topic posts much more suitable than having a choice. As for "confusing others," I try to enforce the usage of {{Msg-talk}}. I simply remove the off topic post and warn the user with the template message. JangFett ^(Talk) 17:57, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
  • Then if this fails, you can propose that as an alternative and I will oppose it. I have gone as far toward satisfying the previous opposition as I am willing to go. I cannot in good conscience support a policy that forces every single off-topic post to be reverted, because that does more harm than good and as Naru said above, what one person thinks is off-topic may actually be relevant to needed changes to the article upon clarification. Forcing all off-topic posts to be reverted is simply a bad idea because a determination of whether something is off-topic is sometimes a judgment call. —MJ— ^{Training Room} 21:33, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
    • Both you and Naru seem to misunderstand me. When I say off topic, MJ, I mean like the ones I described, Fe Nite described, and to an extent what Tope said in your previous CT. I understand where you and Naru are coming from regarding good intention/good faith messages, but I don't (by any means) want to see people commenting on crap like "IS AHSOKA A VIRGIN!?!," ect. That to me is nonsense, off topic, and is of no use to the wiki. I would like to see those posts removed. However, I'm afraid that some people might comment to them anyway, thanks to this policy, which is absurd. I hope this clarifies my post. JangFett ^(Talk) 23:00, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
      • If I see "IS AHSOKA A VIRGIN!?!," even I will seriously consider removing it because it's borderline vandalism. Basically, as long as everybody uses common sense, we'll be fine. Would adding an additional note in the footnote suggesting that users consider whether the comment is in good faith satisfy you? If that would work, then what wording would you suggest (because my brain is drawing a blank right now)? Also, if someone replies to an off-topic post, the reply is technically just as off-topic since it does not directly discuss a change to the article, so as I see it there's nothing stopping another user from coming in later and removing both comments if they disagree. —MJ— ^Holocomm 01:21, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
        • Common sense may or may not be used, which could lead to problems if the latter is chosen. What the policy gives is a choice—users could either keep or delete off topic posts. I think it could go deeper than that, and what you have suggested could work, but being more specific could help to avoid issues. What I see is not a loophole, per se, but rather "well the policy suggests that I could remove it, but I'm not going to." Do you see what I mean? I think if you clarify 'what is off topic' then that could help out others, otherwise we might end up having 'common sense debates' and 'what stays and what goes'. I may be over sensationalizing, but I would not be surprised if a discussion such as that occurs thanks to the policy's current wording. I just hope people don't reply to that kind of nonsense. JangFett ^(Talk) 01:47, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
          • I can see where you're coming from, but personally I think we're smart enough to use common sense to determine what is off-topic. If it becomes clear in a month or two that further clarification is needed in the policy, then that can be discussed at that time and the policy amended in a new CT thread, but unless and until that happens, I don't see a need for changes on that front. Essentially, I see it as a case of "let's cross that bridge if and when we come to it". Make sense? —MJ— ^{Jedi Council Chambers} 06:09, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
            • You have a lot of faith within the editors, such as newer users. I would like to see this being taken care of before any incident occurs. It's much more safer. JangFett ^(Talk) 14:52, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
              • Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree for now. I'm completely open to amending it in a later CT if a need for doing so becomes clear, but without evidence of the policy actually being abused, I prefer to assume good faith. —MJ— ^{Jedi Council Chambers} 20:18, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Prop 2: Adding a link to the Welcome template

Do we need to add a link to this to the list of policies in the welcome template? The list has an "other policies and guidelines" link, but I think this is important enough to have its own link in that list, being a policy that practically every newbie will need to know early in their wiki-careers.

This vote is obviously dependent on Prop 1; is Prop 1 fails, this vote is moot.

Add link to policies list and in second paragraph below list

1. As proposer. If it's deemed warranted to remove one to keep the columns even, I would suggest removing the privacy policy, since the real, legally binding one for all Wikia wikis is linked at the bottom of every page and ours is out of date. —MJ— _{Council Chambers} 05:15, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
2. Whatever the policy ends up as eventually, this is a good idea. —Silly Dan _(talk) 16:18, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
3. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 16:32, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
4. That's fine. JangFett ^(Talk) 17:59, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
5. NaruHina ^Talk 20:30, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
6. Pop it! Menkooroo (talk) 00:17, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
7. Fe Nite (talk) 20:18, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
8. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:09, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
9. Cade Calrayn 19:10, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
10. Definitely. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 23:37, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
11. Of course.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 06:23, August 5, 2013 (UTC)
12. CC7567 ^(talk) 20:38, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
13. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 19:41, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
14. 1358 ^(Talk) 19:05, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

No link in list, only in second paragraph below list

No link at all

Discussion about Prop 2

General discussion