This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. OOM 224 (he/him) 13:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Enough talk (page policy)
[EDIT: Forum:CT:Happy talk is open for voting!] OOM 224 (he/him) 14:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The current talk page policy is a long-winded mess, but voilà: a proposed revision (diff).
Thank you to everyone on the related Forum:CT:Deletion policy revamp, which deals with our usage of RevisionDelete that the existing talk page policy also talks about, albeit inconsistently. And a special thank you to Supreme Emperor for collaborating with me along the way for this proposal!
Main points:
- General restructuring, tone of language copy-editing, and removal of redundant clauses for concision.
- Current policy mandates the use of signatures and for them to comply with our signature policy (which is more intended for vote eligibility, but ahem, separate issue). What are you gonna do if users don't sign their comments or have a slightly-too-fancy sig on a talk page? — It'd be more helpful to ask that comments are signed and that unsigned comments be noted with {{Unsigned}}
- There is also a separate issue of whether or not to include an anonymous user's IP, which blurs the line with doxxing, so my proposed wording is limited to registered users, and the template should be redone ASAP to allow the option of simply stating that the author is "anonymous." Signing off your own IP isn't much better, so it's definitely something to look into.
- Adopted the deletion policy revamp's parameters for the use of RevisionDelete. The mention of both bureaucrats and Fandom staff is intentional, in case someone is uncomfortable with reaching out to a local admin.
- Likewise, allowing admins to do link fixes. This is a bigger issue but its place is in this policy, so whatever our consensus is, I think it should be inserted here. Currently, I've only noted down template and category redlinks. If there is objection to including even those, then we should have a wider discussion about it in separate SHs/CTs and make this a separate vote if and when these proposals are taken to the CT.
- Removal of the footnote giving "optional" advice about what to do with off-topic messages and simplifying it into the main text itself.
- Removal of completely unnecessary "rule" saying that vandalism, spam etc. can be removed without archiving.
- Removal of the silly, unenforceable caveat for users removing their Welcome templates ({{W}}) that they must pass "the assumption that the user has read and understood the information contained therein." If someone wants to remove it, then just let them.
- Removal of the rule specifying that "potentially defamatory comments" may be removed. It's pretty vague, and if anything violates the no personal attack or civility rules then they should be removed anyway.
- Removal of point 5, on users choosing to retain "personal attacks and the like" on their own user talk pages. This was solely an excuse to highlight dissatisfied users and perceive their words as humiliation/personal trophies (a now-banned admin used to keep an extensive archive of complaints). This isn't Twitter.
- Specified WP:USER's rule about user page redirects and added the deletion policy proposal's rule about deleting unnecessary article talk page redirects.
That's all from me! OOM 224 (he/him) 10:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Discuss
- Looks good! Two small nitpicks however. I don't see any reason to specify that only admins can remove redlinks using <nowiki> and <nowiki>. If a user wants to help out with such redlink maintenance I don't see any reason why a user couldn't do so. You also should mention that redirects can be fixed as well, I also don't see any reason to limit this to administrators. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 12:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Gotta agree with this point here. Backend tasks are something I enjoy as well and given I often work with SE on things, it would be great to actually be able to help instead of just throwing pages at him and telling him about the redlinks. Of course, if there are any questions, an admin is likely to know best, but that shouldn't restrict others from helping if they want to. If anything, that might take the load off of the other admins and let them do what other things they need to do. —SnowedLightning (they/she) 17:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree as well. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 08:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Good points. Updated redlink fixes in the proposal to be inclusive of all users. Redirects and pipelinks might be more complex, so I'll leave it to another discussion about link fixes. OOM 224 (he/him) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would also be fair to remove links to pages that were CSDed as well as trash compacted, such as Wookieepedia:Inq/The Triage. ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 21:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Good point again, and I agree, though this is probably best left for the separate wider discussion about link fixes after the current proposal goes through the CT. There is the complexity that speedy deletions aren't documented outwith the delete log and that certain pages might be deleted due to being of really low quality yet the remaining redlinks are still valid. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would also be fair to remove links to pages that were CSDed as well as trash compacted, such as Wookieepedia:Inq/The Triage. ThrawnChiss7
- Good points. Updated redlink fixes in the proposal to be inclusive of all users. Redirects and pipelinks might be more complex, so I'll leave it to another discussion about link fixes. OOM 224 (he/him) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree as well. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 08:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Gotta agree with this point here. Backend tasks are something I enjoy as well and given I often work with SE on things, it would be great to actually be able to help instead of just throwing pages at him and telling him about the redlinks. Of course, if there are any questions, an admin is likely to know best, but that shouldn't restrict others from helping if they want to. If anything, that might take the load off of the other admins and let them do what other things they need to do. —SnowedLightning (they/she) 17:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is worth noting that spam and such can be removed without archiving, so new users aren't confused. Rsand 30 (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Noted. I've also added a rule from {{Talkheader}} defining what is "on-topic" and what isn't. OOM 224 (he/him) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- "1. We ask", pardon my french, but shouldn't the policy state "we require" instead? Feel like it's kinda optional phrased like this. Regarding Unsigned, I get what you mean with doxxing, and since we can't even engage with anonymous users anymore... but I would find suboptimal if an "anonymous template" no be presented with the upcoming CT, since I often manage talk pages. Secundo, would that new anonymous template should be retroactively applied to older talk pages messages? Also, in regard of off-topic, do we really need to have "consideration should be given to retaining the post"? I mean, if it's off-topic, then there is no use to keep it. The "offending" user may be reached directly on their talk-page to be informed, whereas requesting admins or users to further engage about the reason why something is off-topic is just well... further going into off-topic, right? NanoLuukeCloning Facility 08:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Nano's points about off-topic posts; there really isn't a benefit in keeping them. ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 12:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nano, when you say "template", what exactly do you mean by that? Wook does have an Unsigned template that I can see, and it does work with both IPs and registered users. I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say when you say it's suboptimal, could you clarify? —SnowedLightning (they/she)
- I meant in regard with OOM proposal to anonymise IPs, {{Unsigned}} isn't adapted for this use at the moment (leaving the username blank break it, and if you input text like "anonymous user", it will link to Anonymous user. So we need a new technical solution to this issue, either a new template or adding a parameter to the Unsigned template to allow us to properly contextualize a message without revealing the IP. But also... is that really something we can do? The history will always be accessible with the anonymous IP listed. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 19:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Good points. Removed the "we ask" and "consideration should be given" parts. As for anonymous users, I do think either the existing template should be touched up to include a field for anonymous users simply signing their message off as "Unsigned by an anonymous user" or a new template should be made with that function (like how the right rail displays anonymous editors as "A Fandom user" rather than show their IP). And yeah, we can't hide everyone's IP in the page histories; I just think it's rather risky and unnecessary to list anonymous users' IPs on the talk pages themselves. I think it's best to limit this proposal just to formalise the use of {{Unsigned}} for registered users and have a separate discussion about anon users on talk pages. OOM 224 (he/him) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- (This is more on topic for that hypothetical separate discussion:) I don't care what an unregistered user's IP address is, but it's important to have a mechanism to link to their edit history. Currently this can only (as far as I know) be done via IP address, so that shortcoming would have to be addressed before any further anonymizing of talk-page signatures. Asithol (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Nano's points about off-topic posts; there really isn't a benefit in keeping them. ThrawnChiss7
- I think it might be reasonable to say that redlinks resulting from a TC-delete-decision could be removed from user talk pages with nowiki, pursuant to the "Remove any links leading to the page." clause on the administrators how-to guide's TC section. Mainly because TC decisions (when they result in delete) are essentially consensus decisions to take said content offsite, so there's not really room for abuse there since it's vote-resultant. Though, I also wouldn't be opposed to expanding this to all links provided guideline such as this existed.—spookywillowwtalk 18:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Good point, added to the present proposal! I spoke with Anil earlier and I think the proposals here seem to line up with them, which look good to me. The list is perhaps slightly difficult to prosify into the policy text, but having the examples on a subpage (c.f. Wookieepedia:Signature policy/examples) and referring to it in the overhauled policy text could be a good way to finalise this. OOM 224 (he/him) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fair. Could be a lot to do in one go; and especially if subpaged, could even just be a followup SH. Thanks; —spookywillowwtalk 20:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Good point, added to the present proposal! I spoke with Anil earlier and I think the proposals here seem to line up with them, which look good to me. The list is perhaps slightly difficult to prosify into the policy text, but having the examples on a subpage (c.f. Wookieepedia:Signature policy/examples) and referring to it in the overhauled policy text could be a good way to finalise this. OOM 224 (he/him) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I have made the proposal clearer that "Private personal information, personal attacks, and discriminatory content may be redacted, and all policy-breaking offences, as with vandalism and uncivil behavior, should be reported to administrators." The current policy already allows users to redact personal info and personal attacks, and per Wookieepedia:Fandom anti-discrimination policy, TOU-violating things should be likewise removed. I think it's also good to specifically mention the vandalism and civility policies while we're at it. Since this technically introduces the policy change that all users may remove discriminatory content (as opposed to admins only, as documented on the current "Fandom anti-discrimination policy" page, I'll also make this a separate vote. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Some of this is entirely spitballing, but is it worth working into point 1 about how off-topic chatter can be taken to Discussions? It might be more helpful than only indicating not to post such things, but to rather say where they should go instead. The other thing that came to mind is that, in recent years, we've seen an increase in use of module pages. Those might fall under the same banner of template/category links in that there's generally no point in having deleted module links around.—spookywillowwtalk 21:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ooh yes, I'll add those too. Now that you mention it, though I haven't seen Module pages being linked on talk pages, I'm actually thinking whether the rule should just be expanded to all non-existent pages that are outside the main article namespace. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds suitable. The main concern in the past was that a mainspace article, of course, might someday need to be made; expanding to all non-mainspace links doesn't affect that but also saves having to list 10-15 separate namespaces. And, they aren't linked a lot, but they can be sometimes when telling people how to use/get to ArchiveAccess and such.—spookywillowwtalk 21:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ooh yes, I'll add those too. Now that you mention it, though I haven't seen Module pages being linked on talk pages, I'm actually thinking whether the rule should just be expanded to all non-existent pages that are outside the main article namespace. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Update: we already in practice allow some extra exceptions to editing messages, like a user correcting bullet point alignments + correcting wording and typos in their own comments to a limited extent. I realise the wording is ambiguous, but this is something that inherently is ambiguous, yet it should be fairly obvious what's alright and what significantly changes the message/is made a long time after the original comment is posted and is therefore unacceptable. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, for the record, Wookieepedia:Fandom anti-discrimination policy, Wookieepedia:WookieeProjects, and Wookieepedia:The Great Typo Hunt will need to be adjusted accordingly where they cite the Talk page policy to reflect these changes if passed. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{Talkheader}} could also use some updated wording from the proposal, methinks. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Instead of saying that all article talk pages begin with {{Talkheader}}, we should probably say that all non user talk pages should begin with the header, ie like we do in practice for File talk:, Template talk:, etc. On the other hand, maybe we should create a different template for those namespaces because they aren't articles which is what the current template is about. Either way, more clarity should be included in the new policy. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 21:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Aye, updated. The template has a parser function that changes "article" to "page" if it isn't placed in the usual Talk namespace. OOM 224 (he/him) 17:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- While the top of Talkheader now refers to pages, the body of the template still refers to "articles" regardless of namespace. ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 01:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- While the top of Talkheader now refers to pages, the body of the template still refers to "articles" regardless of namespace. ThrawnChiss7
- Aye, updated. The template has a parser function that changes "article" to "page" if it isn't placed in the usual Talk namespace. OOM 224 (he/him) 17:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Forum:CT:Happy talk is open for voting based on everyone's points here (and elsewhere)! Thank you all! OOM 224 (he/him) 14:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
