Guild Wars Wiki talk:Talk pages/Archive 1

Disagree with having research at the bottom, since that is the place for new topics. Makes more sense to have research stuck at the top, new topics at the bottom and old topics in the middle. --Xeeron 08:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I think it needs a mention of GWW:NPA with regards to removing comments. -- ab.er.rant 06:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added both the above (and more) to the draft. Since this is placed under "Formatting" (is it?), should it also mention that style formatting that changes the standard look of a talk page should be avoided? -- ab.er.rant 08:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with that. --Xeeron 09:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove vandalism? What exactly counts as vandalism as opposed to someone adding a stupid comment? - BeX 09:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean we should mention what is considered vandalism somewhere? Maybe in GWW:CONTENT? Or GWW:DP? -- ab.er.rant 17:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well consider part of DP, it says pages that are clearly nonsense can be deleted - I've seen talk page comments like that, or ones that are just random abuse that isn't really directed at anyone. Is there a difference between a message that says "hdshfsdhdfihsfdkdsk" (revert) and "omg hiiiiiiiii" (not useful but not detrimental?) and "lol retards" (I'd revert this) and "gwwiki sucks!!!!! hi mom" (I see comments like this left from time to time). None of those comments should stay because they don't contribute towards discussion, but because they are talk page comments people don't generally remove them, cause you know removing comments is taboo. :P - BeX 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maximum indentation

I'd prefer to standardise indentation. Inconsistant indentation resets are a bit messy, and no indentations resets are extremely messier. -- Gordon Ecker 10:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any problem with people using indend resets whenever they like. 2 People with big screens discussing might prefer to reset indents very late, while a large group, including people with small screens, will want to reset the indent earler. Longer text replies call for earler resets, short answers of the "support." type for later. Furthermore indent resets are ideally placed at a "break" in the discussion, which might call for an earlier or later RI. All reasons not to write down a number here. --Xeeron 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the need of mentioning it at all. You kinda pick this up quickly from everyone else when you start getting involved in talk page discussions ;) if anything, perhaps mention that other users can modify indentation and spacing slightly for the purpose of reduce general messiness? -- ab.er.rant 15:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Move

Should probably have a section on when it's OK to move content to other talk pages. Probably mentioning {{moved}}. Backsword 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the list of exceptions for comment removal. -- Gordon Ecker 00:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Censored comments

If something such as a personal attack or inappropriate link is censored out of a comment, should the note be added inline at the point of removal, or at the end of the comment after the signature? How should the note be formatted? -- Gordon Ecker 11:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Inline & clearly distinguishable from the rest of the comment. --Xeeron 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is <x removed> overkill? -- Gordon Ecker 01:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends. If it's removed in it's entirety, then nothing should be placed. No reason to leave note saying we reverted the vandalism of a spambot. If someone wants to know, it's in history.

Otoh, if one censures a part of a larger text, one should make sure that one makes it clear that the new text is not that of the original author, as well as striving to maintain context, so one does not make people say things they didn't intend to say. Backsword 05:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, no note should be necessary for vandalism of other users' comments, and for wholly removed comments, notes should only be necessary to preserve the context of responses to the removed comments. -- Gordon Ecker 06:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Move?

Why not merge this into to something like Guild Wars Wiki:Talk pages as this page doesn't really format? — ク Eloc 貢 07:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to the move? — ク Eloc 貢 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Renewed discussion

Some comments:

• The general guidelines section seems very wordy for something that should be kept simple. I'll see if I can try to trim it down a little.
• I removed "You should always contact an administrator before removing a comment on a talk page" regarding removal of attacks. Not stipulated by GWW:NPA and admins shouldn't need to be bothered unless a violation has occurred. Users who would abuse it won't bother telling you regardless of whether you request that they do.
• I also removed the explanation of needing permission to archive another's talk page. It's common courtesy to ask so the general rule of saying you shouldn't is enough, but you still can, provided that the other doesn't complain about it.

-- ab.er.rant 03:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Volatile talk pages

Would someone like to incorporate rules for handling volatile talk pages into this draft? See Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal for the volatile talk pages discussion. -- Gordon Ecker 02:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on the community portal, let's wait and see if the system is effective before we "hard-code" it into policy. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We can certainly try to draft something "formal-ish" about how it works, so that it's at least worded in a clearer manner to ensure that admins are all on more or less the same page. One problem with the rest of this draft is that this is more guidelines than policy. Seeing that we're upping sysop discretion, and how the removal of text from user pages is being discussed, perhaps it's possible to up this to policy proposal. -- ab.er.rant 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to not include that here and have a policy which also handles the suggestion pages. poke | talk 18:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What about a protection guideline? -- Gordon Ecker 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh... why would we need that? (Also, Poke, this is probably the most appropriate page for "volatile" talk pages and it's not a bad idea to keep it centralised in one talk-page-policy. I do agree with a separate policy for suggestion pages, though, as that's quite unrelated to talk pages.) -- Brains12 \ talk 14:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"this is probably the most appropriate page for "volatile" talk pages" - this is a guideline proposal and everything else here would not fit on a policy, so this is not an appropriate place. poke | talk 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering the discretionary nature of the volatile talk page actions, I don't think it matters much whether it's a guideline or policy (would it matter anyway?). -- Brains12 \ talk 16:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Passing or changing guidelines involves less red tape. -- Gordon Ecker 02:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm wondering if the sentiment of "guidelines are not enforceable" would be a problem. -- ab.er.rant 10:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Before any attempt to expand this

Do we have consensus on turning this into a proper guideline before any attempt to add in the volatile talk pages? I think it would help to first get the standard talk page stuff out of the way first before we throw in that big wrench. -- ab.er.rant 11:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a little problem with the removal allowances (particularly in regards to NPA) -- this says that personal attacks can be removed from talk pages, and don't have to be archived for user talk pages. While this might be acceptable in certain cases, I think it's useful to have those archived for future reference. GWW:NPA even says that one should contact an admin before contemplating removal and removal should only occur in special circumstances, while this says that one can remove them outright (or one should remove them, depending on where you read and how you read it). Considering how many people can be "GWW:NPA-trigger-happy", there may be removals that shouldn't occur. That brings me to another clarification question -- is the list supposed to be things that can be removed or things that should to be removed? -- Brains12 \ talk 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Modified that section to explicitly mention "cannot" and changed policy-based removal to defer to other policies. -- ab.er.rant 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Brains about the usefulness of some NPA's later. Otherwise, looks good. -- Antioch 04:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bump. By the way, how do we get Help:Archiving into this? Remove the redundant parts from this page, or keep what we have and just add a link to the help page? -- Brains12 \ talk 16:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How about a little of both? You know how an article may have a little bit of another article with a link? Such as MGS under the Music section has a link to the main article about music? Not sure if that was clear, but I think a hybrid approach is best for those that want the short and long of it all. --Antioch 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How about now? The how-to stuffs are in the help, the guidelines are more fully here. -- ab.er.rant 15:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

izzy, ursan

I think it's time we removed the notices on User talk:Isaiah Cartwright and Talk:Ursan Blessing. The former's quietened down (no edits since July 21st and no contrib from Izzy since March), and the latter has had no trouble at all. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine. – Emmett 23:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

iawtc. poke | talk 12:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Didn't think they'd need archiving, but I'm not bothered about it. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)