Talk: Talk Page Policy

Should we add something about not removing comments from talk pages?--Matoro183 ^(Talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should. Removing talk page comments is a big no-no in my eyes. - Cavalier One^{(Wizarding Wireless Network)} 21:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do. -- Freakatone ^Talk 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Old Messages

There has recently been a string of users on the wiki who respond to very old talkpage discussions, usually adding nothing to the discussion. Since it is generally bad etiquette to respond to old talkpage discussions (ie anything older than a month), I've been removing these posts, but I just noticed that there is nothing mentioned in this policy about it. I'd like to recommend adding that messages will be removed if they are responses to old discussions, as there is never any reason to respond to old discussion (some discussions that have been responded to are over 5 years old, the discussion is long since dead). --Sa ju uk 17:06, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree with this approach. While it's true that these responses are to very old posts, they often provide explanations and context for the main article. This can help current and future editors understand the previous history of the article and identify or close up any loose ends (even if they are years old). What is the value of reducing participation and leaving questions unanswered? Ironyak1 (talk) 17:35, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

Then they can be started as a new discussion with a separate header, referencing the old discussion by linking to it. Responding to ridiculously old posts is usually never necessary, because whatever purpose the discussion was started for has long since passed (and most of the discussions, as well as responses, have nothing to do with improving the article either, just off-topic chatter that doesn't belong on talkpages).

It's a rather common policy on wiki's with article talkpages to disallow responding to old discussions, since there's usually no point in doing so and it's considered poor wiki-etiquette to do so, but that's just me. --Sa ju uk 17:40, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

You've raised several different issues there:

Off-topic chatter: As per the policy, not allowed. I would suggest that the Talk Policy be clarified that these are subject to removal along with spam and vandalism.
Responding inline vs End of Thread or New Topic & link: This is a style issue IMHO. Personally, I prefer always responding inline and creating threads as it makes more clear what post is being responded to. Regardless the Talk Policy should clarify a perferred approach for the site (if there is one).
Responding to messages older than a certain time: I will reiterate that any useful additional information should be welcome regardless of the age of the topic. As this is a collaborative research project, keeping all the discussion under a the same topic heading makes it most readable I believe.
Wider wiki-etiqutte or Policies: While other wiki's have adopted other norms and policies, these are not stated here and therefore should not be assumed to be in effect. While these may form the basis for further improvements to practices here, I would suggest having the discussion and modifying the Policies first before chastising others for their contributions as a more productive and less abrasive approach.

Given that some recent well-articulated and thought-out contributions (such as those on Talk:Dementors by wva ) are not in violation of the current policies, I am going to undo their removal. As the wider Harry Potter fandom is strongly inclusive, I would hope a similar atmosphere can be maintainted here to help encourage participation. Cheers! Ironyak1 (talk) 18:43, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

Talkpages are about improving articles. Anything posted on an article talkpage that has nothing to do with improving the article in question does not belong on a talkpage and such messages will be removed regardless, because that is not what they are for. They are not there to "cater to the fandom" as they are not an outlet of forum discussions If we had threaded forums, this would not be an issue, as it would be obvious to remove any talkpage posts that are forum-esque.

Looking at the history, many of the policies on the wiki haven't been updated in years, which isn't surprising given the relative lack of editors on the wiki. Maybe it's time we started overhauling policies related to the community (not so much style policies), but given the lack of editors here, I don't see it happening.

When a discussion has long since died out, there is zero purpose in responding. The people involved in said discussion have likely moved on and the discussion topic has almost certainly died out. If someone wants to bring up a new discussion point, the common sense thing to be doing is to start a new discussion topic with a new heading, which is common practice on wiki's since it's considered good etiquette. Inserting responses randomly in the middle of a dead discussion is bad etiquette and not to mention pointless. Plus, responding to old discussion topics is pointless because nobody will respond, it has nothing to do with whether a post is considered "constructive".

I'm not too sure why you are making executive decisions (based on the tone of your response), especially as that it is not your call to do so. Judging by your response, I'm not sure whether you are familiar with the use of a talkpage on wiki's, but I'm happy to be proved wrong. --Sa ju uk 19:42, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

I am not the one removing contributions based on policies that are not present - that is what you are doing. See the Talk policy and the the first comment on this page - former admins felt that removing talk comments to be a big no-no. Clarifying when they should be is a good idea.

Given that there are standing questions on a talk page about the topic of the article, then I see the the topic as open regardless of time passed. The value of clarification if not just for the original poster but for every reader afterwards and helps inform any future edits to the article. How best to respond is a matter of convention, which should be clearly stated.

I am not making executive decisions of any sort, merely raising the issue that you have expectations from elsewhere that may or may not apply. I would hope you would take the time to clarify the policies of this wiki with the wider community before enforcing what you think they should be (like the only way to use notes and refs, complaining of fanon pages, removing crosses for the deceased, deleting talk comments, etc)

Whether or not this wiki chooses to abide by the wider wiki standards (which you are clearly more familiar with than I) is up for discussion. As I said, the Harry Potter fandom is strongly about inclusion, and some common so-called rules or conventions may not carry over in order to achieve that. Given the stated interest from admins for greater and wider participation, removing people's contributions based on vague or unstated rules is counter-productive IMHO. Perhaps you could make some suggestions of best-practices you think should be policy so everyone can discuss?

Obviously, this is up to the admins for resolution. I hope our exchange here and some of the other related Wiki activity will draw their attention.

For me, it's not about proving someone right or wrong - it's about encouraging people to join in and work well together on our shared interests. Cheers Ironyak1 (talk) 20:28, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a comment was posted in reply to an older comment is not a valid reason for removing it. Not only is removing replies counterproductive, as Ironyak1 pointed out, but it's against the talk page policy, which states "no comments should be removed from talk pages, unless they are spam or vandalism." Sajuuk made a point of reprimanding a user for removing a message from their own page just a few days ago.

Comments left on talk pages often fall through the proverbial cracks. They may go unnoticed for months or even years – but replies, however belated, are generally still useful. They can help the original poster (if they're still around), or future editors who come along with the same question or suggestion. They save people from having to pose questions that have already been asked and reiterate answers that have already been given. So it's perfectly acceptable to reply to any talk page comment that hasn't been archived (and, in general threads are archived when the talk page gets too long, not after a certain amount of time has elapsed).

Off-topic comments are a bit of a grey area. Policy doesn't explicitly state that it's acceptable to remove off-topic comments from talk pages, but, for as long as I've been on this wiki, it's been okay in practice. Of course, what constitutes an off-topic comment is, to some degree, a subjective judgment, so care should always be exercised. And I find that replying to off-topic comments with a reminder about our talk page policy instead of removing them outright is sometimes more effective at deterring further off-topic comments.

Inserting a comment within an existing comment by another user is a common mistake made by editors who are new to wikis. Just move the comment to the correct location and drop the user a note about proper talk page formatting (generally, it isn't acceptable to touch another user's comments, but simple formatting tweaks necessary to keep the wiki running smoothly are okay). ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 05:50, April 22, 2016 (UTC)