Revision as of 17:13, 16 July 2010 view sourceJohnFromPinckney (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,888 edits Reverted 1 edit by NatHandal; Moved to Talk:Nathalie Handal, since it doesn't belong here. (TW)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:24, 27 December 2024 view source Cewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,436,773 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(677 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{pp-semi|small=yes}} | |||
{{talkheader}} | |||
{{ |
{{skiptotoc}} | ||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page/Archive index | |||
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page/Archive <#> | |||
|leading_zeros=0 | |||
|indexhere=yes | |||
}} | |||
{{tmbox | {{tmbox | ||
| type = |
| type = content | ||
| image = ] | | image = ] | ||
| imageright = ] | | imageright = ] | ||
| textstyle = text-align: center; font-size: 150%; line-height: 150%; | | textstyle = text-align: center; font-size: 150%; line-height: 150%; | ||
| text =Please '''do not''' post anything about other Misplaced Pages articles here. This page is only for discussing the help page on using talk pages. Every article has its own talk page; if you want to discuss subjects relating to an article, please post it on the article's own talk page, not here. If you have a general question about Misplaced Pages, visit our ''']'''. | |||
| text = | |||
}} | |||
'''This is NOT the page for posting questions about using Misplaced Pages or for posting random comments. See ] for help about using or editing Misplaced Pages.''' | |||
{{talkheader|search=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
{{Misplaced Pages Help Project|class=B|importance=top}} | |||
}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 70K | |||
|counter = 4 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 6 | |||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
|algo = old(60d) | |||
|archive = Help talk:Talk pages/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=/Archive index | |||
|mask=/Archive <#> | |||
|leading_zeros=0 | |||
|indexhere=yes | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{metatalk}} | {{metatalk}} | ||
== Problem with reply script == | |||
==Question about other Talk pages I've seen== | |||
Why do I see stuff in discussions talking about things like minor grammatical errors in an article, and people asking if someone can correct those? Couldn't that person just have easily have corrected the mistakes themselves? Is that bad to automatically correct stuff we see wrong with articles, or are we supposed to discuss things first?] (]) 02:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
: No, it's not at all bad. Typos and grammar can and should be fixed right away of course, and being ] and edit without prior discussion is an ].<br>I know of three reasons for such talk page requests: | |||
:* The article is ] and the user is editing anonymously or his account is ] to edit those | |||
:* The user doesn't dare to edit articles and rather asks experienced users to take care of it. | |||
:* The user doesn't know or isn't sure how it should be worded instead | |||
: ] 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Since ] redirects here. See ] <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 22:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Accessing a Talk page – Experience of a beginner== | |||
"To access a talk page look for a tab or link labelled discussion, or discuss this page. These tabs or links will be found either at the top of the page or on the left hand side (near edit this page). Users using the Classic skin will see "Discuss this page" instead." | |||
== Apostrophes signifying ownership (when to use s's or s') == | |||
What this paragraph means is: | |||
I wish to state that I mean no criticism here, I only hope to provide some clarification and advice, but that these are personal recommendations that reflect my preferences, but I hope that my reasons for them are clear. | |||
When you want to write a comment about an article on the page, you have to use a Talk page. To find a Talk page, you won't find one by looking for a label (or tab) labelled Talk page. Instead, you have to look for a tab called, confusingly, Discussion. The Discussion tab is on the top of the page that you are looking at, probably to the left of a tab called Edit this page (if there is one). Click on the Discussion tab. The page that you see on the screen is called a skin, with a particular layout. There is one layout called a classic skin. On a classic skin layout, the tab for the Talk page is called Discuss this page. To open the Talk page, click on the Discuss this page tab. | |||
NB In this comment I'm adding a space to all quoted "s' " endings for clarity. Without one it's difficult to distinguish between "s " and "s' " and it can easily be overlooked: "s'"/"s"; | |||
I used to have The Oxford Guide to Punctuation and made a particular note of their advice about the use of "s'/s's" and was prompted to write this comment by the example in the third paragraph of this page. to wit: | |||
This is just one paragraph, but typical of the difficulties of most of the explanations given. | |||
:"for example, User talk:Jimbo Wales for Jimbo Wales' userpage" | |||
According to the Oxford Guide, "s' " should only be used for '''plural''' nouns ending in s. All singular nouns ending in s should use "s's". My brother's name is Boris, so you can appreciate I had reason for my curiosity to be piqued. The only other guideline I've found that seems logical to me is to let pronunciation be your guide. For example, if you would pronounce my brother's sofa "Borises sofa" you should use "Boris's sofa" whereas if you pronounce it "Boris sofa" use "Boris' sofa". The question is whether you would write a plurality of Boris "Borises"? I would, apparently, that is the "standard convention". Pronunciation is a bit trickier: should it be "Borises sofa" or even "Boriseses sofa"? I'm tempted to use the latter although this would make the Oxford and pronunciation guides part company: the former suggests "Borises' sofa", the latter "Borises's sofa" which is definitely incorrect. | |||
The way I pronounce the example I quoted would also suggest that it should be "Wales's", but I wanted to post this comment before editing the page as I realize that there is a difference of opinion and that "Wales' "is perfectly acceptable. I've also consulted my browser's AI (I use Opera for my browser and its AI is called Aria) and it said exactly that, that for singular nouns either is acceptable and for plural nouns "s' " should always, exclusively be used. However, it did provide the additional observation that the use of "s's" for singular nouns also avoids potential confusion when the next word begins with s. Originally I used "Boris's car" in my examples, but with that in mind I've changed his possession to a sofa. Aria also confirmed that singular nouns ending in s should add an "es" for their plurals. Apparently, these principles are the "standard convention". It's possible you object to being called or thought of as "conventional" (and I don't think I am either) and that makes you disinclined to accept this advice, but surely the most important thing is to get your point across? Aria repeatedly said in its replies that consistency is paramount. Would you be inconsistent just to be unconventional? | |||
Let me conclude and try to persuade you that the practices I've outlined are at least worth considering by adding the observation that using "s' " to show possession for '''any''' noun ending in s, singular or plural, has nothing to recommend it beyond being the simplest. It is my contention that it's the least informative because it indicates nothing beyond the obvious: that the word ends in s. Granted, there is a distinction between the "s" and "ses" endings for singulars and plurals respectively, but I would still argue that using "s's" for singulars is better, especially in the case of typos or misspellings. ] (]) 06:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{replyto|SaintIX}} I don't see what this has to do with improving ]. --] 🌹 (]) 12:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@] I'm sorry, I didn't make it very clear, but I did mention that I was considering editing the page (to change the "s' " endings in singular nouns to "s's". As far as I know, there's only one, but it's also a matter of consistency across Misplaced Pages as a whole). The more I think about it however, the more inclined I am towards leaving it as is. If you think I should remove the comment, I'm fine with doing that. I thought, as I'd written and posted it I may as well leave it for some of the information it contains. Also, surely improved clarity would improve ] and that was the crux of my argument for using "s's"? ] (]) 14:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Why do you think this one page should follow a different set of guidelines for the possessive form than the entire remainder of Misplaced Pages? If that isn't your intent, if you're aiming your proposal at this whole site, then this isn't the place for it, even if this is where you'd first like to apply your preferred rule. ] (]) 14:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::@] I don't. It's why I said "there's the question of consistency across Misplaced Pages as a whole". And changing all of them is too big a job and I wouldn't be so presumptive anyway. However, not all pages follow the "s' " rule. I've seen both rules used and discussions on other talk pages (not initiated by me). I think it may be down to differences between US and UK English uses, although I know both use both? I seem to notice "s' " is more prevalent from US users (in general, not just here) and "s's" from UK, but it's just an impression and may be cognitive bias. Anyway, it's not that big a deal, I can live with it 🙂. The main thing is consistency across a page. Across all of Misplaced Pages may be a tall order, but if we can live with our spelling differences… | |||
::::Just a quick question: have you been having problems with the reply links on the notifications page? Both times I've used them today it tells me I'm "no longer logged in" when I press the reply button to submit my reply. And I am definitely logged in: when I've navigated to ] directly and then to here the reply buttons work fine. I'm only asking here as you may have used them yourself? If the problem persists I'll bring it up in the appropriate place. ] (]) 15:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
Is there anywhere in Misplaced Pages that explains how to use it at the level of a novice?] (]) 15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Indentation == | |||
:Sure: ]. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 21:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
I've had two conversations recently with editors who seem to have been genuinely surprised that ], which has been officially recommended for 15+ years, was widely ignored up until the last couple of years (specifically, after the Reply tool became popular). | |||
::And just recently created, ] should be able to help you out. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
That is, we almost always used to have conversations formatted like this: | |||
==] needs to be moved up== | |||
{{tqb| | |||
The top of the article says it is a guideline, but I couldn't find the info I wanted til got to the See also section way at the bottom and the link to the ]. It would be helpful if it could be more up on top, something like "See also: etc." Thanks. ] (]) | |||
What do you think about my idea? ] (]) 1 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I have a question about it. ] (]) 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I think it's a good idea. ] (]) 3 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
and now we frequently format them like this: | |||
:Second time I've come here for advice and low and behold, only found what I wanted by seeing my old message! I guess I should just be bold and do it. ] (]) 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== This page in a nutshell == | |||
Added "This page in a nutshell". ] (]) 14:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Just updated it a bit, think it's ok if not revert and I'll discuss here... ] (]) 23:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Indent specificity== | |||
{{hidden begin | |||
|title =Compacted discussion | |||
|titlestyle =background:#99FF99; text-align:left; | |||
|bodystyle = text-align:left; | |||
}} | |||
The present guidelines on how to indent comments properly are not very helpful, for they are vague and they actively encourage talk page commenters to leave a mess for somebody else to come along and clean up. They say, ''inter alia'': | |||
{{quotation|The first comment in a section will have no colons in front of its paragraphs; the second will have one colon in front of each paragraph; and each subsequent commenter will add one more colon. When a long discussion has many indents (many colons before each paragraph), the discussion may be awkward to read, particularly for people with smaller computer screens. Eventually, for everyone's convenience, an editor will remove all the colons from his or her next reply, usually briefly noting the formatting change. Replies to that comment are formatted as if it were the first comment in a new discussion.}} | |||
This is really not very helpful. What means a "long" discussion? What means "many" indents? And why are we cavalierly assuming that "for everyone's convenience" an editor will act to clean up the mess? Beyond a level-four indentation (four colons preceeding text), the text block grows distorted: unreasonably narrow and unreasonably long. There is also a reference to editors "usually" making note of the indentation reset, which is about as silly and pointless as a buzzer to warn you that your stereo is turned on. If the indentation is reset, it's immediately obvious. No comment to the effect of "Look, look, I reset the indentation!" is necessary. | |||
I propose refining the indentation guidelines as follows: | |||
If there are no colons before the first characters of the paragraphs you're responding to, you use one. If one, you use two. If two, you use three. If three, you use four. If four, you reset the indentation by using none. When you edit the page, '''arrange your text like this:''' | |||
<code> | |||
Comment text from an editor | |||
:Comment text from a second editor | |||
::Comment text from a third editor | |||
:::Comment text from a fourth editor | |||
::::Comment text from a fifth editor | |||
Comment text from a sixth editor | |||
:Comment text from a seventh editor | |||
::And so on | |||
:::And so forth | |||
::::et cetera | |||
Lather, rinse, repeat | |||
</code> | |||
—<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>02:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
*"Many indents" = however many seem like a lot to the editors participating in the discussion. | |||
*"long discussion" = however long long seems long to the editors participating in the discussion. | |||
*It's not necessary to define either of the above. Would it really help if the guideline said it happened in discussions that are specifically 50 lines or more? These are just descriptions of what generally happens during discussions, and what is a convenient way of keeping them readable no matter how long they get. | |||
*"Eventually, for everyone's convenience, an editor will remove all the colons from his or her next reply, usually briefly noting the formatting change." -- This doesn't mean an editor will take it upon themselves to clean up other people's comments. It means that in someone's next response, after a comment with a lot of indents, an editor may simply leave out all indents, the same as you've illustrated for the responses that come after the 4-colon lines. Your example is pretty much the same as the instructions that are on the page now. | |||
*"...editors 'usually' making note of the indentation reset, which is...silly and pointless...it's immediately obvious. No comment...is necessary." -- A comment is necessary to let everyone know that the person responding with no indent does indeed still intend his comment to be a response to the previous comment, rather than the beginning of a new discussion. And yes, people do usually make a note that they're doing that, using "←" or "(outdent)" or "(resetting indent)" before their response. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''13:28, 7 Feb 2009 (UTC)''</small> | |||
:H'mm. I appreciate and respect your substantial contributions to protocol and guidelines, so I'm kind of disappointed that your response here is essentially circular: I perceive and identify a potential problem, and you reply by stating what I identified as a potential problem. Obviously you don't perceive a need for greater specificity in talk page guidelines, and that's fine; it's just that your tone comes across as rather more condescending and dismissive than you might've intended. | |||
:I do not feel the guidelines are adequate as they stand; let me have another try at explaining why: You're right that they don't explicitly call for an editor to come in and clean up the mess, but in practice the only alternative is letting the conversation grow unreadable, and that frequently occurs. When the editors participating in a discussion simply increment the colon count ''ad infinitem'', not caring much about its readability because they've been keeping the hierarchy in mind from the start, that makes it unnecessarily difficult for others to join in the discussion without raising points and asking questions that have already been covered (but are sufficiently difficult to read due to the high-level indenting that they just get skipped). Most discussion participants welcome participation from more than just the first arbitrary number of editors who see and respond to the initial post, so it seems sensible for guidelines to suggest a maximum indent level before reset. On the other hand, I agree with your implication that there's no call for unnecessarily prescriptive talk page protocols. That's why I'm here; guidelines are not rules and they certainly aren't laws. They serve as a friendly nudge toward behaviour that benefits the whole community, not as a paddle with which to spank those who prefer to proceed otherwise. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>23:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
::If you simply think the guideline should specify a maximum number of indents before "resetting" to no indents on the next reply, as it seems to me, I suppose that's a possibility, as long at it were worded as a mere suggestion -- but I doubt it would make much of a difference in practice. Besides, the examples in the guideline seem to suggest a max of 3 or 4 colons. When you encounter a discussion that you feel has gotten too messy with indents, you could take it upon yourself to clean it up. I've done that before. I'd hesitate to add in such a suggestion to the guideline though, since anyone taking it upon themselves to do that would need to be very careful to preserve others' comments, including their intended threading structure. This is aimed towards beginners who might not be able to do such a great job at that, and might end up stepping on some toes messing with other people's comments. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''00:08, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)''</small> | |||
:::Terrific, it looks as if our agreement outweighs our disagreement: yes, I am advocating primarily for a guideline/suggestion ''per se'' on the max number of colons. You're right that it likely won't have anything like a magic-wand effect of immediately eliminating 5th- and higher-order indents, but well-written guidelines suggesting good practice tend to percolate through the community and eventually influence behaviour. One other point I didn't mention is that when the colon count grows beyond four, it grows increasingly difficult to count them so as to add one more. I've done a great deal of hierarchy cleanup on various talk pages myself, and you're right; even for an experienced editor with a good grasp on the discussion underway, it is challenging to do so without introducing threading errors — I agree with you that we should not explicitly encourage editors to do such cleanup. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>00:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
{{hidden end}} | |||
:::: I'm not sure which number to choose, as any choice would be pretty much arbitrary. On counting colons, I usually don't even bother. I just copy the previous line's colons to the clipboard, paste them on a new line, then type one more. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''00:43, 8 Feb 2009 (UTC)''</small> | |||
I'm suggesting four thoughtfully rather than arbitrarily. The cut-paste-plus-one technique certainly works to circumvent the colon-count issue, but it's nice to visualise a world without such hoops to jump through (that's the same world wherein every driver uses his turn indicators every time, and nobody ever tries to use the express lane at the grocery with more than fifteen items, but at least we can try…). | |||
On the issue of ← or other means of calling out the indentation reset: I have certainly seen it, but having participated in a great many discussions (and perused many more), I don't find it to be a standard practice, or even a particularly common one, and I don't do it myself. I really don't think it's necessary or especially helpful; I have very seldom seen indent-reset create difficulty in following the continuity of a thread. Have you? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>01:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
== Talkpage problem == | |||
Could someone take a look at ] and blah figure out why the archives aren't showing up right? It's displaying as /Archive 1.00000000000000000000000000000. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 05:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
: It was a software update problem ]. Resolved for now. ] <small>(])</small> 05:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Confusion == | |||
This guideline seems confused as to whether it wants to use the term "talk page" to refer to only '''article''' talk pages, or to refer to '''all''' talk pages. For example, the second sentence which says ''A talk page is a space for editors to discuss improvements to articles and other pages'', is misleading, since user talk pages most definitely have almost nothing to do with improvements to ''pages'' in Misplaced Pages, except in the sense that every single posting at Misplaced Pages ultimately has the goal of improving articles. | |||
Or consider this, from the nutshell box: | |||
*''What's the meaning of a talk page? | |||
* ''To let multiple users collaborate on improving an article'' | |||
Well, not really; a template talk page or a category talk page have nothing to do with improving any particular article, and, as mentioned above, a usee talk page isn't even about improving anything other than perhaps an editor's behavior; it can be used to invite an editor to participate in a WikiProject, to commiserate (failed RfA, vandalism problem), to post an award, etc., none of which directly improves any particular page. | |||
At minimum, this guideline needs to be changed so that sentences like "Talk pages serve as a place for comments about articles, ... " are corrected to read "''Article'' talk pages serve as a place for comments about articles, ... " Unless there are objections to that, I'll be happy to do so unless someone else gets there first (and anyone is welcome to, of course). -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] </font> ] 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Editing archives== | |||
A recent 3RR report of {{user|Fhue}} led me to realize this page and ] have no explicit guidelines about how you shouldn't edit an archive. Long story short, this user was changing the content of a thread that had already been archived from ], and got into a revert war over it because he believed that "there is no rule against editing archives". (Also, the ANI archives don't have the usual {{tl|archive}} tag at the top.) Granted, anyone with half a brain should understand that you're not supposed to edit the archives, but it made me think, should a bullet point or something be added here (or at ]) being more explicit about the fact that archives should not be edited? <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 05:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Ah, I just realized this question would be more appropriate at ]. Reposting there. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 05:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Redlinks to useless content. == | |||
I think the word "discussion" should be shown in red if it contains only <nowiki>"{{WikiProject Ireland|class=start |importance=low}}{{WPMA}}"</nowiki> things. It causes me to look to discussion page ("what do people think about this article?") and find out that there are actually no comments. | |||
May be there should be a list of templates that does not cause page to be considered as "existing" one? | |||
] (]) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:What I think you're saying is that you are bothered by the fact that when an article's talkpage consists only of banners such as "WikiProject Ireland" but no actual discussion, the link leading to it from the article (usually rendered as "]") turns blue leading you to believe there is quality discussion when in fact it's just banners. I recall this issue being raised before, don't recall where though... So you propose that certain templates ''don't'' cause the ] to turn blue? I don't know if that could even be done with template coding, but I don't think you'll get much consensus for it. -- ]] 02:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Is Talk Page a good place for such banners? May be there should be dedicated place for such things. Such banners looks a bit like if every redlinked page contain "This page is not yet written" banner, turning links to them to blue. I tried 10 random pages: only 2 pages have redlinked talk page and 8 pages have blue links to talk pages that are only of banners. It means that most of blue links to talk pages don't really lead to any discussion. May be there should special auto-added banner "This page has useful information at discussion" on each article that contains normal discussion? May be I should write a patch for MediaWiki that will allow marking some templates as "no-bluelinking"? (What chances that such patch will be approved?) ] (]) 23:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes well, it may not be interesting to readers but editors may find such banners useful by directing them to relevant WikiProjects. They're also needed for the category system to group all articles associated with a certain WikiProject. | |||
:::You're suggesting that WikiProject banners and the like have their own dedicated namespace? Interesting idea.. I suggest you propose it to ] and your template patch idea to ]. There they can be discussed in detail. -- ]] 23:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::The proposal at "Village pump (proposal)" is moved to "Archive 50". Does it mean it is failed and I should send the second proposal to the "Village pump technical" (about tempates without bluelinks)? ] (]) 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::Yes you can try Village Pump technical, maybe you'll have better luck there. Usually if it gets archived it means there just wasn't much interest in the proposal. You should try rewording a little and proposing it again maybe in a few weeks. -- ]] 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
--]] 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
== Compacting the nutshell box == | |||
The nutshell box is quite big, and I suggest that the bulleted lines are made bold, and moved up right next to the text on the previous line. Like this: | |||
{{nutshell|<p>What's the meaning of a talk page? '''To let multiple users collaborate on improving an article''' | |||
How to get there? '''Every page has its own "discussion" tab, just click on it.''' | |||
How to ask a question, start a discussion or make a comment? '''Click on the "new section" tab.''' | |||
How to contribute to a discussion? '''Scroll down to the right discussion, and click [edit]'''}} | |||
] (]) 13:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==This page and the other guidelines== | |||
We can surely do something about this: we have this page and ], both marked as guidelines. Surely we can either combine them, or else make this page (the descriptive one) into a help page rather than a guideline? I would suggest renaming this page ] and then moving the other one (still a guideline) to ].--] (]) 14:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
*All right, let's see what happens by being bold. I'm going to replace the guideline tag with a how-to tag, and propose (below) that the page be moved to ].--] (]) 10:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Requested move == | |||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' | |||
The result of the move request was '''page moved'''. ]''']''' 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
] → ] — - As a guideline, this would be redundant to ]. But in fact the content here is technical help, not community norms. Hence it's a clear case where the help page should be in the help namespace, and the corresponding guideline (which could later be moved to this title in fact) in WP space.--] (]) 10:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Agree on both moves. ] ] • ]</font> 21:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> | |||
== faster help == | |||
when you sign on wikipedia shouldn't there be a faster way to get quick help?~hessy10119♥~ <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:26, 31 December 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
: Care to elaborate? --] (]) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Discussion/talk == | |||
so, wikipedea has articles & talk pages about those articles, & an article about talk pages, & this is a talk page about the article about talk pages. | |||
so, this is a talk page about an article about talk pages about articles. | |||
does anyone else see this as random? | |||
& if someone replys to a comment i made on a talk page of an article, will i know unless i go & check? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: You got it ! and no, unless someone replies on your own talk page, you do have to check the page ... until they finish and decide to implement ] that is, maybe... ] ] • ]</font> 17:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for telling me on my page, i had no-idea you'd replied. that really does answer my question! ] (]) 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Only one skin == | |||
Only one skin picture ('Monobook') is available here. Please post of 'Vector also'. -- ] (]) 16:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
== "New Messages" box for subpages == | |||
I was wondering, if someone were to edit the ] of ], would I get a new messages box? If so, if I clicked on the "new messages" part, would it take me to ] or the subpage talk page? --] ] ] ] 03:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{tqb| | |||
What do you think about my idea? ] (]) 1 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I have a question about it. ] (]) 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I think it's a good idea. ] (]) 3 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
I remember discussions years ago about why it was bad (according to other editors) for the occasional editor to actually follow the advice on the help page, and I've seen many editors "correct" the indentation for the third comment, if the third editor used the officially recommended style. | |||
== i made one == | |||
and it got deleted, can you help me?] (]) 07:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)me | |||
I describe the first style as "traditional", and its main advantage is that sighted people can see where "Bob's" comment ends and "Chris's" begins. The main complaint is that you then have to use some basic social and communication skills to determine whether Chris is saying that it's a good idea for Bob to have a question about Alice's idea, or if Chris is saying that Alice's idea is a good idea. | |||
:No, your talk page is still there. It hasn't been deleted. Click the "talk" link above, or go to ]. ] (]) 08:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
The "HTML semantics" model is clearer about which replies related to which other bits, but makes it harder to notice that an oblong block of text is comments from multiple people, especially if the comments are long and the editors in the earlier positions do not have flashy custom signatures to draw the eye. This occasionally leads to misattribution (e.g., "Chris, what's your question?") and confusion. | |||
== Proposed update == | |||
I don't think there is anything wrong with either approach, but I've been surprised by how many editors believe that the second is "how we've always done it". If that happens to be your impression, I suggest that you look through the archives from the previous decade at the village pumps or major noticeboards for conversations involving more than two people (and not using bullet points/voting) so you can see how rare consecutively aligned comments were until the last couple of years. | |||
I propose we update this page by adding a recommendation that users add a linebreak before replies, when they are on the same indent level as the previous reply. This is necessary to give the same vertical spacing as the rest of the comments. The two different vertical spacings can be seen in the example on the current help page: in the second table, ]. (Compare it with her reply to John above.) In that example, it doesn't matter too much because the comments are so short they don't reach the right margin. But typically comments do reach the right margin, and, depending how long the last line is, the lack of proper paragraph spacing means that at a glance it's not always obvious that there's a break between two replies in this scenario. From ], it seems there's no likelihood of a global fix, and it would be best to update this guidance accordingly with the workaround. ] (]) 09:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
For example, in the archives of this page, there are 13 discussions that had enough people involved for a choice to be made about indentation style (], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (in which two replies weren't indented at all), ], ], ], ], ] – I stopped there, because ] started soon after that). Only two discussions (March 2007 and 2017) use the indentation style recommended by this help page, and one of those discussions was about the indentation style (so some of the people replying to it had probably read the instructions immediately before replying). | |||
==Article redirected, what happens with talk page?== | |||
Again, I don't think that there's anything wrong with the style recommended here. I just don't want people to be passing around misinformation about "how it's always been", because it really hasn't always been like that. In fact, one of the things learned during the massive 2019 consultation about on-wiki discussions was that ]. ] (]) 19:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
I've just redirected ] to ] (the same person). Redirect still has its talk page (wikiproject tags and nothing else). Should it stay, be blanked or ... ? ] (]) 09:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I personally have found that what's being marked as "traditional" occurring more frequently as a result of implementing the Reply tool. I suspect that rather than going up and clicking on the reply link after the relevant comment, many users (including veterans) typically click on the link of the comment that's closest, usually the most recent one. On venues like the Teahouse where there's a higher influx of new users, I'm more likely to adjust the indentation levels of users who visually look like they're replying to me but are clearly responding to another comment in an attempt to curb bad habits in newbies. If this is a point of contention it sounds like an RfC is in order.{{pb}}I don't find comment bleeding in the "HTML semantics" model an issue as I use ], a feature of which is to scan for signatures and create specific containers for comments, even if they happen to be at the same indentation level. —] ( ] • ] ) 02:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::If you think you're seeing a change, then I encourage you to do an actual comparison. Pick the same week from about 10 years ago, and count the numbers. | |||
::(I don't think that either style should be considered a "bad habit"; sometimes one or the other makes more sense for a specific conversation.) ] (]) 05:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::BTW, if you're particularly interested in this subject, you might be interested in the discussions at ] (two boxed examples, and editors struggled a bit to decide which one was the True™ version of threading) and ] (someone changes the indentation to match what he thinks is correct, and gets told that he did it wrong). ] (]) 05:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The point I'm making is if the style the majority of people use isn't mentioned on ], it might merit adding as there's an unspoken consensus that it's allowed. —] ( ] • ] ) 15:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I think the main reason people use the traditional approach is because they are prioritizing visual differentiation over semantically correct HTML (=LISTGAP-like reasons). I think that a solution that would address both of these concerns is to adopt the kind of formatting that's traditional at the French Misplaced Pages. ] for an example. The blue shading provides a visual distinction even when the comments are aligned. ] (]) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Mention refideas? == | ||
Would it be appropriate to briefly mention {{tl|refideas}}? -- ] (]) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Its good to be able to look up history but even better when its family. Roald Amunsden was my great great grandad, and good to see his discovery never went unseen. | |||
T <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Is this allowed? == | |||
== Suggestion: Discussion page voting == | |||
I posted a discussion on a talk page and someone went and deleted it. I feel like they could have just replied back and not delete it which is a little rude. Is that even allowed? | |||
I have a suggestion! | |||
Maybe Misplaced Pages discussion pages should be arranged like Reddit, where it is possible to rate and comment on each individual comment. The comments could then be sorted by popularity, date etc. This would make the pages much more readable and allow for an easier recognition of the consensus on a particular topic. | |||
] 20:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
This might be a terrible idea (and may have been posted in the wrong place?); I do not edit Misplaced Pages articles very much, but I think my suggestion may be useful! What do you think? I'm pretty sure Reddit is open source, so this could make implementation less problematic. I realise it's quite a significant change, but I'd be willing to help with the programming. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Hi. It would have been helpful if you'd linked to the edit that got deleted because it matters in answering your question what the nature of your post had been. I did find it, . | |||
:Before I looked for it, I figured you'd possibly used a talk page for an improper purpose, such as asking a general question about the article's topic or talking about something that the topic reminded you of. These would be improper because article talk pages are only for discussing the state of the article and potential improvements to it. In such cases, it's reasonable to enforce this purpose by removing the post and to explaining why in the edit summary. You, however, were expressing your opinion about the inclusion of something in the article, and it was therefore a suitable contribution. It shouldn't have been removed, and ] should have responded to you on the talk page. (That being said, instead of creating your own thread, could you have posted your comment in the thread where it had been discussed?) ] (]) 22:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks! | |||
::] 04:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I think I will repost it but I wanna add a note talking about the whole deletion thingy. This is was I have: | |||
::"I read one of the discussions on here where someone mentioned Anorith (a fossil Pokémon). Someone replied that references to pop culture like that are not necessary or something but considering Chimecho is mentioned on the page for wind chimes (see: Wind chime#Influence) it sounds appropriate that Anorith would get mentioned here. And Armaldo. | |||
::(This shouldn't be deleted. I made a post on the help page for talk pages and someone said that this post shouldn't have been removed and that the person who removed it could've just replied.) | |||
::(four tilde for signature)" | |||
::I am wondering if the note at the end is necessary or not. | |||
::] 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::], 1) the note at the end is not necessary. 2) you should add your message to the section {{section link|Talk:Anomalocaris|Pop culture}} instead of starting a new section. —] (]) 15:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::The last post on that was from 2015 so if I did reply it'd be like necroposting | |||
::::] 18:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::It's absolutely fine to post in old discussions on less popular talk pages. By the way, last message in that section is by ]. {{ucfirst:{{They|Apokryltaros}}}} are clearly still interested in this article. —] (]) 19:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Ok! Thanks. | |||
::::::] 13:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Is this also allowed? == | |||
== Proposed move to Help: Using talk pages == | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:List_of_Monogatari_characters&action=history | |||
This talk page seems to attract a steady stream of posts that aren't to do with improving the help page: either requests for general help, or spam. I believe the title is the cause. It's confusing. "Help: Talk page" can sound like a general talk page for getting help on any subject. I propose we move it to Help: Using talk pages. ] (]) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:{{Done}} ] (]) 05:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
In September I made a discussion on this wondering if some things on the page were made up because I don't know much about Monogatari but some things I could believe and some things just sounded off. Someone had deleted my post and I put it back up only for them to delete it again. Is that allowed? They said my post was "irrelevant" and did not go by the general discussion rules or something which it was not. | |||
== Forums == | |||
] 04:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Where are the Forums? Does Misplaced Pages have forums? ] (]) 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
:{{replyto|ILike Leavanny}} Before posting here, you should have read the various notices that are displayed (there are at least four). What they come down to is: this is not a help desk, it the page for discussing improvements to the ''specific'' page ]. --] 🌹 (]) 13:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I still need help :/ ] 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::]: Article talk pages are generally for the purpose of improving the respective encyclopaedia article. Maybe what you want is the ''']'''?<span id="ClaudineChionh:1729307558555:Help_talkFTTCLNTalk_pages" class="FTTCmt"> — ''']''' <small>(''she/her'' · ] · ] · ])</small> 03:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)</span> |
Latest revision as of 20:24, 27 December 2024
Skip to table of contents |
Please do not post anything about other Misplaced Pages articles here. This page is only for discussing the help page on using talk pages. Every article has its own talk page; if you want to discuss subjects relating to an article, please post it on the article's own talk page, not here. If you have a general question about Misplaced Pages, visit our main help contents. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Talk pages page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
This help page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE.This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Misplaced Pages page Help:Talk pages. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Misplaced Pages, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. |
Problem with reply script
Since WP:REPLY redirects here. See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Reply_script_not_loading_properly? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Apostrophes signifying ownership (when to use s's or s')
I wish to state that I mean no criticism here, I only hope to provide some clarification and advice, but that these are personal recommendations that reflect my preferences, but I hope that my reasons for them are clear. NB In this comment I'm adding a space to all quoted "s' " endings for clarity. Without one it's difficult to distinguish between "s " and "s' " and it can easily be overlooked: "s'"/"s";
I used to have The Oxford Guide to Punctuation and made a particular note of their advice about the use of "s'/s's" and was prompted to write this comment by the example in the third paragraph of this page. to wit:
- "for example, User talk:Jimbo Wales for Jimbo Wales' userpage"
According to the Oxford Guide, "s' " should only be used for plural nouns ending in s. All singular nouns ending in s should use "s's". My brother's name is Boris, so you can appreciate I had reason for my curiosity to be piqued. The only other guideline I've found that seems logical to me is to let pronunciation be your guide. For example, if you would pronounce my brother's sofa "Borises sofa" you should use "Boris's sofa" whereas if you pronounce it "Boris sofa" use "Boris' sofa". The question is whether you would write a plurality of Boris "Borises"? I would, apparently, that is the "standard convention". Pronunciation is a bit trickier: should it be "Borises sofa" or even "Boriseses sofa"? I'm tempted to use the latter although this would make the Oxford and pronunciation guides part company: the former suggests "Borises' sofa", the latter "Borises's sofa" which is definitely incorrect. The way I pronounce the example I quoted would also suggest that it should be "Wales's", but I wanted to post this comment before editing the page as I realize that there is a difference of opinion and that "Wales' "is perfectly acceptable. I've also consulted my browser's AI (I use Opera for my browser and its AI is called Aria) and it said exactly that, that for singular nouns either is acceptable and for plural nouns "s' " should always, exclusively be used. However, it did provide the additional observation that the use of "s's" for singular nouns also avoids potential confusion when the next word begins with s. Originally I used "Boris's car" in my examples, but with that in mind I've changed his possession to a sofa. Aria also confirmed that singular nouns ending in s should add an "es" for their plurals. Apparently, these principles are the "standard convention". It's possible you object to being called or thought of as "conventional" (and I don't think I am either) and that makes you disinclined to accept this advice, but surely the most important thing is to get your point across? Aria repeatedly said in its replies that consistency is paramount. Would you be inconsistent just to be unconventional? Let me conclude and try to persuade you that the practices I've outlined are at least worth considering by adding the observation that using "s' " to show possession for any noun ending in s, singular or plural, has nothing to recommend it beyond being the simplest. It is my contention that it's the least informative because it indicates nothing beyond the obvious: that the word ends in s. Granted, there is a distinction between the "s" and "ses" endings for singulars and plurals respectively, but I would still argue that using "s's" for singulars is better, especially in the case of typos or misspellings. SaintIX (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @SaintIX: I don't see what this has to do with improving Help:Talk pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 I'm sorry, I didn't make it very clear, but I did mention that I was considering editing the page (to change the "s' " endings in singular nouns to "s's". As far as I know, there's only one, but it's also a matter of consistency across Misplaced Pages as a whole). The more I think about it however, the more inclined I am towards leaving it as is. If you think I should remove the comment, I'm fine with doing that. I thought, as I'd written and posted it I may as well leave it for some of the information it contains. Also, surely improved clarity would improve Help:Talk pages and that was the crux of my argument for using "s's"? SaintIX (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you think this one page should follow a different set of guidelines for the possessive form than the entire remainder of Misplaced Pages? If that isn't your intent, if you're aiming your proposal at this whole site, then this isn't the place for it, even if this is where you'd first like to apply your preferred rule. Largoplazo (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Largoplazo I don't. It's why I said "there's the question of consistency across Misplaced Pages as a whole". And changing all of them is too big a job and I wouldn't be so presumptive anyway. However, not all pages follow the "s' " rule. I've seen both rules used and discussions on other talk pages (not initiated by me). I think it may be down to differences between US and UK English uses, although I know both use both? I seem to notice "s' " is more prevalent from US users (in general, not just here) and "s's" from UK, but it's just an impression and may be cognitive bias. Anyway, it's not that big a deal, I can live with it 🙂. The main thing is consistency across a page. Across all of Misplaced Pages may be a tall order, but if we can live with our spelling differences…
- Why do you think this one page should follow a different set of guidelines for the possessive form than the entire remainder of Misplaced Pages? If that isn't your intent, if you're aiming your proposal at this whole site, then this isn't the place for it, even if this is where you'd first like to apply your preferred rule. Largoplazo (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 I'm sorry, I didn't make it very clear, but I did mention that I was considering editing the page (to change the "s' " endings in singular nouns to "s's". As far as I know, there's only one, but it's also a matter of consistency across Misplaced Pages as a whole). The more I think about it however, the more inclined I am towards leaving it as is. If you think I should remove the comment, I'm fine with doing that. I thought, as I'd written and posted it I may as well leave it for some of the information it contains. Also, surely improved clarity would improve Help:Talk pages and that was the crux of my argument for using "s's"? SaintIX (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just a quick question: have you been having problems with the reply links on the notifications page? Both times I've used them today it tells me I'm "no longer logged in" when I press the reply button to submit my reply. And I am definitely logged in: when I've navigated to Help:Talk page directly and then to here the reply buttons work fine. I'm only asking here as you may have used them yourself? If the problem persists I'll bring it up in the appropriate place. SaintIX (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Indentation
I've had two conversations recently with editors who seem to have been genuinely surprised that Help:Talk pages#Indentation, which has been officially recommended for 15+ years, was widely ignored up until the last couple of years (specifically, after the Reply tool became popular).
That is, we almost always used to have conversations formatted like this:
What do you think about my idea? Alice (talk) 1 January 2012 (UTC)
and now we frequently format them like this:
What do you think about my idea? Alice (talk) 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I remember discussions years ago about why it was bad (according to other editors) for the occasional editor to actually follow the advice on the help page, and I've seen many editors "correct" the indentation for the third comment, if the third editor used the officially recommended style.
I describe the first style as "traditional", and its main advantage is that sighted people can see where "Bob's" comment ends and "Chris's" begins. The main complaint is that you then have to use some basic social and communication skills to determine whether Chris is saying that it's a good idea for Bob to have a question about Alice's idea, or if Chris is saying that Alice's idea is a good idea.
The "HTML semantics" model is clearer about which replies related to which other bits, but makes it harder to notice that an oblong block of text is comments from multiple people, especially if the comments are long and the editors in the earlier positions do not have flashy custom signatures to draw the eye. This occasionally leads to misattribution (e.g., "Chris, what's your question?") and confusion.
I don't think there is anything wrong with either approach, but I've been surprised by how many editors believe that the second is "how we've always done it". If that happens to be your impression, I suggest that you look through the archives from the previous decade at the village pumps or major noticeboards for conversations involving more than two people (and not using bullet points/voting) so you can see how rare consecutively aligned comments were until the last couple of years.
For example, in the archives of this page, there are 13 discussions that had enough people involved for a choice to be made about indentation style (2006, January 2007, March 2007, May 2007, February 2008, August 2008, January 2010, October 2010a (in which two replies weren't indented at all), October 2010b, 2011, 2012, 2017, 2018 – I stopped there, because mw:Talk pages consultation 2019 started soon after that). Only two discussions (March 2007 and 2017) use the indentation style recommended by this help page, and one of those discussions was about the indentation style (so some of the people replying to it had probably read the instructions immediately before replying).
Again, I don't think that there's anything wrong with the style recommended here. I just don't want people to be passing around misinformation about "how it's always been", because it really hasn't always been like that. In fact, one of the things learned during the massive 2019 consultation about on-wiki discussions was that nothing about talk pages is really how it was always done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I personally have found that what's being marked as "traditional" occurring more frequently as a result of implementing the Reply tool. I suspect that rather than going up and clicking on the reply link after the relevant comment, many users (including veterans) typically click on the link of the comment that's closest, usually the most recent one. On venues like the Teahouse where there's a higher influx of new users, I'm more likely to adjust the indentation levels of users who visually look like they're replying to me but are clearly responding to another comment in an attempt to curb bad habits in newbies. If this is a point of contention it sounds like an RfC is in order.I don't find comment bleeding in the "HTML semantics" model an issue as I use Convenient Discussions, a feature of which is to scan for signatures and create specific containers for comments, even if they happen to be at the same indentation level. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you think you're seeing a change, then I encourage you to do an actual comparison. Pick the same week from about 10 years ago, and count the numbers.
- (I don't think that either style should be considered a "bad habit"; sometimes one or the other makes more sense for a specific conversation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- BTW, if you're particularly interested in this subject, you might be interested in the discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 2#Flat versus threaded, use of indents (two boxed examples, and editors struggled a bit to decide which one was the True™ version of threading) and Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 8#Just want to make sure this is 100% acceptable (someone changes the indentation to match what he thinks is correct, and gets told that he did it wrong). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- The point I'm making is if the style the majority of people use isn't mentioned on WP:THREAD, it might merit adding as there's an unspoken consensus that it's allowed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think the main reason people use the traditional approach is because they are prioritizing visual differentiation over semantically correct HTML (=LISTGAP-like reasons). I think that a solution that would address both of these concerns is to adopt the kind of formatting that's traditional at the French Misplaced Pages. Look at their village pumps for an example. The blue shading provides a visual distinction even when the comments are aligned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Mention refideas?
Would it be appropriate to briefly mention {{refideas}}? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Is this allowed?
I posted a discussion on a talk page and someone went and deleted it. I feel like they could have just replied back and not delete it which is a little rude. Is that even allowed?
Lucy LostWord 20:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. It would have been helpful if you'd linked to the edit that got deleted because it matters in answering your question what the nature of your post had been. I did find it, here.
- Before I looked for it, I figured you'd possibly used a talk page for an improper purpose, such as asking a general question about the article's topic or talking about something that the topic reminded you of. These would be improper because article talk pages are only for discussing the state of the article and potential improvements to it. In such cases, it's reasonable to enforce this purpose by removing the post and to explaining why in the edit summary. You, however, were expressing your opinion about the inclusion of something in the article, and it was therefore a suitable contribution. It shouldn't have been removed, and User:Apokryltaros should have responded to you on the talk page. (That being said, instead of creating your own thread, could you have posted your comment in the thread where it had been discussed?) Largoplazo (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks!
- Lucy LostWord 04:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think I will repost it but I wanna add a note talking about the whole deletion thingy. This is was I have:
- "I read one of the discussions on here where someone mentioned Anorith (a fossil Pokémon). Someone replied that references to pop culture like that are not necessary or something but considering Chimecho is mentioned on the page for wind chimes (see: Wind chime#Influence) it sounds appropriate that Anorith would get mentioned here. And Armaldo.
- (This shouldn't be deleted. I made a post on the help page for talk pages and someone said that this post shouldn't have been removed and that the person who removed it could've just replied.)
- (four tilde for signature)"
- I am wondering if the note at the end is necessary or not.
- Lucy LostWord 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- ILike Leavanny, 1) the note at the end is not necessary. 2) you should add your message to the section Talk:Anomalocaris § Pop culture instead of starting a new section. —andrybak (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The last post on that was from 2015 so if I did reply it'd be like necroposting
- Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 18:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's absolutely fine to post in old discussions on less popular talk pages. By the way, last message in that section is by User:Apokryltaros. They are clearly still interested in this article. —andrybak (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- ILike Leavanny, 1) the note at the end is not necessary. 2) you should add your message to the section Talk:Anomalocaris § Pop culture instead of starting a new section. —andrybak (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Is this also allowed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:List_of_Monogatari_characters&action=history
In September I made a discussion on this wondering if some things on the page were made up because I don't know much about Monogatari but some things I could believe and some things just sounded off. Someone had deleted my post and I put it back up only for them to delete it again. Is that allowed? They said my post was "irrelevant" and did not go by the general discussion rules or something which it was not.
Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 04:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- @ILike Leavanny: Before posting here, you should have read the various notices that are displayed (there are at least four). What they come down to is: this is not a help desk, it the page for discussing improvements to the specific page Help:Talk pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I still need help :/ Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- ILike Leavanny: Article talk pages are generally for the purpose of improving the respective encyclopaedia article. Maybe what you want is the entertainment reference desk? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)