Guild Wars Wiki talk:User pages

Archive

---

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6

Removing comments from talk pages

IMO, an user should be allowed to remove comments from his own talk page, unless those comments were wiki business. Using my own talk page as an example, I would be allowed to remove this section (if I wanted to), but I wouldn't be allowed to remove this one, as it's about wiki business.
Assuming that all contributions an user makes at another's talk page are something which is worthwhile and should be preserved for posteriority is false, as everyone here knows. Allowing users to remove everything is bad, and of course trolls will try to abuse this (as trolls will try to abuse everything), but some degree of control over an user's own talk page would be actually a good thing. Erasculio 14:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This entire discussion is going to revolve around the question "why would be good to have "some degree of control over an user's own talk page"". So please address that before this spawns several subsections. NuVII 14:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In order to remove abuse, in order to remove trolling, in order to remove all the other things that are meant for disruption but don't fall within GWW:NPA, in order to spare us the drama of telling new users to behave when one of their first actions in the wiki is trying to remove an undesirable "Welcome!" from their talk pages, and so on. Erasculio 15:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well, while I agree with you in general, that last one is potentially problematic, since those "welcome" templates generally have links to the help sections, policies (GWW:SIGN), and procedures (use the "show preview" function), etc., that would be construed as wiki business. -- FreedomBound 15:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing welcome templates is always allowed. If they delete it and then need help finding something, they're dumb, and policy shouldn't cater to that low standard. Warnings and the like must be archived. -Auron 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The removal of templates is allowed, but those are rarely used nowadays; the removal of welcome messages, which are not as damaging yet ironically less useful, is not allowed. I agree that warnings and similars have to be archived. Erasculio 15:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is to watch over users to make sure they remove only topics that are deemed non-critical? What if one user sees a topic as something they can remove, yet another sees it as a topic that should be preserved? What if they get into it? You would want that hassle just so a few users don't like archiving meaningless threads? Sometimes it's best to use the K.I.S.S. system. I assume you agree from reading your last post here. — Gares 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If something is removed and no one cares enough about it to ask the user to not remove it, IMO it's a sign that it's something that could have been removed. If someone cares enough about it to ask it to remain, in other hand, it's a good sign that it's something to be kept (or someone is just trolling).

I have no idea what you mean with "K.I.S.S. system", but between taking action to improve something (even if it's some work) or not taking action to leave something bad still bad but confortable, I would rather take action (as seen on the discussion here). Erasculio 16:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep It Simple, Stupid - K.I.S.S. --Rainith 18:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Rainith, no personal attacks. Erasculio, allow me to quote you, "If someone cares enough about it to ask it to remain, in other hand, it's a good sign that it's something to be kept (or someone is just trolling)." Do you really want to give people new tools to troll with? I am aware the restoring of trolling/harrassment etc. has been a grand trolling tool for quite some time, but this would just add another layer of complexity to the trolling game, which I don't think is what you actually want. Seriously, retain all or retain nothing (such as on Wikipedia) are the ways to go. I prefer retain all, but retain nothing isn't as horrible as you might originally think due to the nature of page history. Misery 19:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what is wrong with plain archiving. If someone wants to remove something, archiving is a perfectly working solution. With the added benefit that there is no judgment calls involved. And that it is easy for people to find it after the fact. Each time you add a category of talk that is allowed to flat out delete from talk pages, you add to the potential for abuse, drama, and trolling. The exceptions policy allows removing today is imo enough. Oh, and Rainith was not personally attacking anyone (at least not how I read it), he was just explaining what the common design principle K.I.S.S. is short for ;) --Lensor (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was a little confused too, Lensor, until I saw the commented out portion. K.T.S.M.

Eras, you illustrated the black and white of the issue and that's okay, but there is a gray which is my basis for the line of questioning above. Therein lies the problem that came to my mind. Users get territorial about their userspace and people start to become emotional when reverts suddenly happen, warnings, etc. and then breaches of policies begin. With this in mind and Misery's explanation regarding troll abuse, I don't believe the positives outweigh the negatives. — Gares 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we add a layer of unnecessary trolling to the wiki when we assume that talk page contributions are holy and cannot be removed. If a troll knew his trolling could just be reverted, like we revert vandalism, I think the degree of troll abuse on talk pages (which is what trolls abuse anyway) would eventually be lessened. Erasculio 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"we assume that talk page contributions are holy and cannot be removed" No we don't? Besides, the best way to deal with trolling is to ignore it, not to remove it. In fact, if a good troll knows his comment'll be removed, it'll give him that much incentive to post. NuVII 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting works fine for vandalism, vandals eventually stop, and removing it is far better than leaving it there : P Vandals are forgotten over time; trolls should be, too. But fine, I won't press the issue more than this. Erasculio 21:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk page formatting

As customized user talk pages have been getting more common, I've been coming across a number of pages that, to me, violate "Do not put any formatting on talk pages that make it more difficult for other users to leave messages or that otherwise disrupt communication." Rather than fight a personal crusade based on what I find bothersome, I'd like to see some clarifying examples (which of course should be explicitly stated as not being a comprehensive list). Some things in particular I'd like to see:

• No floating crap. At all. Ever.
• Headers should be kept minimal and relevant. An archive box, navbar, and/or a notice regarding an away status is generally appropriate. Anything beyond that probably isn't.
• Either backgrounds should be kept pale enough to allow easy reading of both normal text and signatures, or forbid backgrounds outright.
• No formatting or transclusions that prevent users from using the normal Edit or New Section buttons at the top of the page.

Those are the major problems I've seen. Anyone have any additions or reasonable protests? And no, "You're stifling my creativity!" is not a reasonable protest. - Tanetris 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see those rules as being overly unreasonable. Floating crap has a high probability of interfering with a talk page. I'm a little less certain on the headers, since that doesn't detract from leaving messages, just makes you scroll a bit. Backgrounds, yes; formatting and transclusions, yes. --JonTheMon 19:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Tanetris. I don't have a problem with users wanting to modify user talk pages (to fit their userpage design), but that's only fine as long as it still serves the purpose. And I agree that things like floating (or rather elements that have a fixed position, as floating in my definition refers to text flow, which is fine) and backgrounds are extremely disruptive (not all). poke | talk 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Tane. -- pling 19:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. I would like to include that "floating crap" also covers items that might interfere with access to the tabs, as well as the personal links at the top. I don't see any reason at all that users whether on their talk page, or on their user page need to have things that are outside of the normal content area (the white space outlined in silver for those that may not understand what I mean). -- Wyn talk 19:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

^ that reminds me, custom "tabs" like on User talk:Halogod35 need to go. -- pling 20:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Tanetris and basically everything else said here :p – Emmett 20:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes Pling, what about a line like "You may only make changes to the content area." for both user page and talk page? So everything outside (like floating elements or crazy tabs) is disallowed. poke | talk 20:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with any technical elements, as long as they don't interfer with the functioning of the page. Don't really see the need to disallow those that don't, and those that do are already disallowed. Backsword 14:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"clarifying examples" - Tanetris 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wanna ask, is my page considered disruptive under any of these? :( --Unending ♥ fear 15:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it, UF. Should be fine. Personally, It's floating crap and OMIGOD MY EYEZ backgrounds that annoy me. I pretty much agree with Tanetris, though headers don't really bother me. Shadow Runner 16:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also support changing that line to "difficult for other users to leave or view messages", to reflect the fact that user talk pages are for users to read as well as make comments. -- pling 16:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"No floating crap. At all. Ever." Please construct this for talk pages and user pages, some links on userpages are not accesable because the 'floating' crap. -- Cyan 16:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

i can see the reasoning for no floating boxes on Talkpages, but userpages are a bit much.--Neil2250 16:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it would be a good thing to get rid of floating boxes, they are annoying, Neil, as much as they are cool. --Unending ♥ fear 16:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree with forbidding the "floating crap" on pages. I don't personally like them either. Example is the box on Neil's talk. - J.P.Talk 16:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (Edit conflict) , J.P, stop correcting yourself D= .Mhm.im fine with removing the one from my talk, but i still say Removing them from userpages is a bit much.--Neil2250 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Floating boxes can be an issue there aswell. They can block the navigation/GWW (since it's popular)/search/support/toolbox links. Just like on talk pages. - J.P.Talk 16:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that. Floating crap anywhere in annoying as hell! :-). Yeah they need to go away. --Lania 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason that a user needs to have anything outside the normal content area. It often ends up conflicting with site notices as well as the functional tabs and links. Any user that uses GWWT, and most especially sysops and admins also have additional functional tabs that need to be considered as well. Regardless of whether it's on a user page, or a talk page, "floating crap" is unnecessary. -- Wyn talk 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mhm k. personaly im just defending other people with floating boxes on thier page now, (since ive removed most of mine now.)--Neil2250 17:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Still not worth it. As Wyn said, if you want to add something to your userpage, you can add it without making it float- no reason for floating crap to be anywhere. – Emmett 17:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Agree with no floating stuff on talk pages, and main userpages. -Sharkinu 17:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Some floating elements are perfectly fine if they are non-obstructive, but the problem there would be defining what non-obstructive is. The only solution that would fix the problem entirely would be to ban floating bits on talk pages. Its like said above, if you want it on the page, it doesn't need to float. Custom tabs don't seem too bad IMO, as they simply allow faster access to thing that the user feels they themselves or others may want to get to. If they are interfering with anyone else, they can simply tell the person that. Navbars I think are perfectly fine, people like to have their talk page follow with their page design, I know I do. Backgrounds definitely need to be plain and unobstructive of the text, what point is there in a background if no one can see the text that they went there for in the first place? The last bit on the list Im not fully understanding, unless someone knows of an example of it.--Neithan Diniem 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

By custom tabs, I mean the white tabs at the very top of the screen that replicate the "page", "discussion", "edit", etc tabs. -- pling 18:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

True, you could say that the area the tab is placed in is not part of the "editable" part of a page, but unless its obstructive, misleading, unnecessary in all means, or just violating the wiki rules, What harm is there in them?--Neithan Diniem 19:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Neithan, if it's there due to something other than a custom css, or js that only the user can see, it's going to be obstructive to the admin tools if it's in the same space as the page, discussion, edit tabs. If it is part of a custom css or js, then it's not a problem, since the only one that's going to see it is the user themselves. The example of what pling is talking about on User_talk:Halogod35 where it says "Stalk me" is definitely obstructive of the tabs that are available to anyone using GWWT, let alone the admins and needs to go. -- Wyn talk 20:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, not being an administrator, I was not aware where the admin tools were layed out. Pretty much when I said obstructive, I was intending it for that in particular. Since they would be obstructive then, yes they should be removed.--Neithan Diniem 03:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing I would like to note is that, done properly, userpage fixed/"floating" boxes can work just fine, as the user has the chance to fix it themselves when making it, and it will virtually never break after that (see my userpage); as opposed to talkpage fixed boxes where a user might add a section and BOOM it breaks (see Neil's (old) talkpage). Thus, I think they're fine on userpages, bad on talkpages. Dime Cadmium! 06:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

While your specific usage of a floating box on your userpage does not pose any impediment, it's much easier to do an all or nothing in the policy, for the simple fact that enforcement becomes problematic when dealing with individual resolutions, custom css and js, etc. While things may look fine an unobstructive to the user, they may in fact pose difficulties for others. If we implement a "no floating crap" clause across the board, there is no argument about which one is ok and which one isn't. -- Wyn talk 11:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your floating box covers the categories at the bottom of the page. Misery 12:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Even in spite of that, the floating text is just weird on a wiki. I'm agreeing with Wyn on a across the board floating anything ban, since it's easier, and less annoying to try to make everyone's floating garbage usable and unobtrusive. The only places where floating stuff makes sense are on administrative/help pages with floating warning signs. --Lania 17:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Some" case-specific examples of something being too obstructive is not an excuse to go nazi-mode "none of this never ever" in my opinion. Create guide-lines that inform people that features should not inhibit the ability to read or use the talk page in all of it's capacity. But that's it. If someone wants to make a harmless floater they should be allowed to. There is a floater on my user-page on the bottom left, it's not doing anything wrong. It should not be removed because a floater on someone else's page did something wrong. And dear god, it's not hard for a user with a different resolution to tell another user that their thing is breaking their wiki experience. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 01:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your floater obstructs the toolbox links, and your custom tabs obstruct the other tabs. -- pling 15:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an alternative for these custom tabs could be reached. If a person could make a second row of tabs below the default wiki tabs, they would not obstruct any of the admin tools. I'm not sure if that would be part of the page or an addition to the monobook, but it would solve that particular problem. As for her floater, it only obstructs until you scroll half a screen down. I see no problem with hers, but I do understand how making a policy with loopholes would be far harder to upkeep and police than a all-or-nothing policy. Is it perchance possible to make a floater be held within a div, similar to the "floater" that is seen on the Anet blog? That would make the floater scroll with the page, but stop upon the end of the div. This could mainly be used for similar scrolling menu bars seen on the blog site, other uses would be more limited. It would however be allowable in an all-or-nothing policy, as such a floater would still be contained within the page. Its an idea, though based on coding I doubt myself that it would be feasible.--Neithan Diniem 16:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Again Neithan, you are not using GWWT, nor are you an admin, the Floater in the bottom left obstructs the toolboxes for me (using GWWT w/Custom wiki links). This is a prime example of why "none of this never ever" is actually the most appropriate in this instance. Keep userpage content within the "content" area of the pages. No floating stuff. It's too subjective to individual configurations. -- Wyn talk 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And Im agreeing with you, Wyn. I said that her floater doesn't obstruct my own view, however a policy blocking all floaters except on specific warnings would be by far easier to implement than a some-but-not-all policy. I was wondering about an unobstructive alternative to floaters if its possible, though I doubt it is with current wiki codes.--Neithan Diniem 17:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is GWWT being given such priority when the majority of wiki editors do not use it? elix Omni 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just installed GWWT so I could see what everyone's been saying, and yes it is obstructive. The administrators likely all use GWWT, as well as having additional links and tabs at the tops of pages. Therefore having floaters or custom tabs in such locations is disruptive to their viewing space, which is important to maintain in order to keep the wiki running smoothly. However, there are alternatives to floaters, their not necessary other than for floating warnings on specific pages. I now see where you've been coming from Wyn, and I agree even more so.--Neithan Diniem 18:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To repeat what I have said above: What about something like "You may only make changes to the content area"? So people can do whatever they want as long as it stays within the white content area. That way no tabs or navigation utilities will be disrupted. poke | talk 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to go beyond telling people to fix things up themselves. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 21:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oooo-kay... then fix your page so it isn't broken for Admins and GWWT users. <== insert tongue in cheek when reading --Rainith 22:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What does GWWT add and what do the admin-thing add to the wiki pages? Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 04:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

GWWT adds tabs at the top of the page and a changing box below the search box to the left. Admins have even more tabs and links at the top of the screen.--Neithan Diniem 04:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is what tabs look like on a typical page for admins using GWWT. There's also a toolbox under the searchbar, like Neithan said, that looks like this (with an image in the way). – Emmett 12:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Update - July 30th: Fixed a bug which forced lazy people to scroll down." Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 21:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

To change this "Your talk page should generally be treated like any other talk page on the wiki. Do not remove any comments, including your own. You may amend your comments to correct typos, but if you wish to change your comment significantly, strike out the portions that you are changing (use ). Comments constituting personal abuse may be removed as per Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks." from that quote to.... "Your talk page should generally be treated like any other talk page on the wiki. Do not remove any comments, including your own. You may amend your comments to correct typos and sentence structures, but if you wish to change your comment significantly, strike out the portions that you are changing (use ). Comments constituting personal abuse may be removed as per Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks." This would go better with a guideline (and other pages) that atm conflicts. 72.148.31.114 18:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that changed there is adding "sentence structure" and moving around a couple periods... IMO: typos include basic sentence structure (e.g. noun-verb agreement, bad wording, etc.), but does not constitute removing 2/3rds of your message, for whatever reason. Like I said on my talk page, I'm not arguing this point any further, my opinion is stated.

I disagree with the change because it's almost useless and doesn't significantly change anything in the policy. ~FarloTalk 18:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also disagree, though I think if you wish to make major edits to your text you should strike it through and then retype what you wanted to say underneath the old text with a note saying you have done so with time stamp etc.. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

disagree because sentence structures is improper grammar 24.130.140.36 20:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)