Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Removing material from article talk pages

A dispute arose about an article talk page a little more than two weeks ago. One editor had made some long comments on the article talk page that another editor thought were using Wikipedia as a forum, how-to guide information, and original research. The other editor deleted the material to which they objected. The editor who had posted the material objected to the deletions, and wanted to discuss the deletions at DRN. I initially did not want to discuss the deletions at DRN, because it is for article conduct disputes, not for disputes about other types of pages. I reviewed the talk page guidelines, and concluded that they are unclear as to when material should be deleted from talk pages, as opposed either to collapsing or to archiving. A complaint was made to WP:ANI, but that was closed as a content dispute, outside the scope of WP:ANI. I agreed to conduct moderated discussion under a rule that I wrote for the purpose of discussing talk page edits. The moderated discussion failed, for reasons that I will not go into here. However, my takeaway from reading the talk page guidelines several times is that they are vague about removal of material from article talk pages. In my opinion, the collapsing or archival of material on article talk pages should normally be recommended as an alternative to deletion. If that is the intent, and I have inferred that some editors agree with me, the policy should say that.

Also, since the deletion of material from talk pages is likely to be controversial, it would be helpful if the guidelines said something about the resolution of disputes caused by any sort of removal of talk page material. Where can talk page removals be discussed? Controversial edits to article pages are discussed on article talk pages. Where are controversial edits to talk pages discussed? Is the lack of an obvious answer to that question a reason to minimize the editing of talk pages?

Should the guidelines on removal of material from article talk pages be clarified? If they are already to clear to other editors, but not to me, can someone explain what is missing in my reading of them (as opposed to being missing in the writing of them)? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to remove a talk discussion that has been labeled a non stater. With the others opinions included. Any help would be greatly appreciated. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User:EnlightenedIllusions - If the discussion has been a non-starter, it makes sense to archive it or collapse it. If you are saying that a discussion that is a non-starter should be deleted, I disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC clearly states that it is appropriate to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself.

Usually, when it's clear that the user made an honest mistake, I just let them know they shouldn't. Otherwise, I delete. I have encountered too many cranks disrupting talk pages to be shy about that.

Judging from the only time I have been taken to AN, I'd say I'm toeing the party line here. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve also seen rather too many people removing content with which they merely disagree. I’d say greater clarity is needed. The current situation is too open to disruptive removals. Riposte97 (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.

Clarity is not the problem. People being ignorant of the rules is. That's not a problem we can solve here.

Question: Did you inform the people inappropriately removing content of their mistake? What happened? Paradoctor (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I made the mistake. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

In the original post case, the removal was not a mistake, because the editor who deleted the content had read the guideline, and thought that the post was inappropriate, and thought that they should have deleted it. That wasn't ignorance of the rules. They interpreted the situation as being one of the exceptions. I agree with User:Riposte97 that greater clarity is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd love more clarity on when talk page content removal is appropriate. Like Riposte97, I've also seen over-eager removal of comments with little policy/guideline basis, and it's often apparent that the reason for removal is just disagreement with the points being raised. On the flip side, I've seen wiki-lawyering over restoring removed comments that consisted of obvious policy violations, or which were so unaligned with any encyclopedic purpose that removal would improve or maintain the project. Comment removal is, in my experience, common. It seems to live in a grey area of our rules, and I think it would be beneficial to bring it more into black and white.

One small change that could help is changing "Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above)" to "Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or unacceptable material (as described above)" with the changes in bold. Changing from "prohibited" to "unacceptable" matches the language used in the section WP:TPNO, and linking to it would aid editors in understanding what is being referenced. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely better to collapse or archive it, unless it's an attack against the subject, blatant spam, vandalism, nazi ranting, or something else we'd nuke on sight. Don't ever be the one who gets ANIed for deleting other people's discussions simply because you seem to disagree with them. It takes little more effort to just archive or hat it than to zap it completely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It was five to one against my proposed question. My question drew away from the original issue at hand. It was deamed a nonstarter. I decided to remove the conversation. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Knowing that a proposal doesn't have consensus support can be important to understand for future editors. I appreciate that you might feel discouraged or other emotions about making a failed proposal. Assuming you made the proposal in good faith, though, then the discussion was at least in part constructive, and so deleting other people's comments versus just collapsing the content is counter to English Wikipedia's discussion traditions. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the discussions I remove either contain no words recognisable by me or Google translate, or consist only of someone's name, phone number and/or social media account. It's important to retain anything vaguely relevant to the associated article or page, even if the ideas it contains would be unanimously opposed, with the usual defamatory or insulting exceptions. Certes (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If one looks at the top of, for example, Talk:Ayurveda (among other examples), where there are active ArbCom remedies, there is a statement that "Please note that due to disruption of this page, if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article, your comment will be removed without reply if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect." In my experience, such comments show up on such talk pages close to daily; it's a constant onslaught. Sometimes, they get replied to and the discussion eventually gets closed, and sometimes they just get removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a difficult one. On the one hand, every editor should have a right to put their case for amending an article politely on a talk page without it being summarily deleted. Viewed in that light, the statement seems passively (and perhaps actively) aggressive. On the other, although consensus can change, we don't want to waste time revisiting every point which has already been decided every week. I would be inclined to reply with a standard response linking to the ArbCom decision and leave the (hopefully brief) discussion to be archived, rather than risk appearing to censor it. Certes (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I share your ambivalence. If other editors haven't gotten there before I do, I usually give such a brief response, especially when the comment sounds sincere, but when the comment is outright obnoxious, I've sometimes reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Any time there is uncertainty about whether something should be deleted or not, it should instead be collapsed with {{collapse top}} along with a title bar indicating a justification (NOTFORUM, etc.). Outright removal should be by consensus, not by the act of a single editor, except for an admin acting in their capacity as admin. (I can see an argument for someone acting in their capacity as an experienced moderator neutrally applying moderated discussion rules as well, but that should be discussed further.) Even if a large amount of content is involved ( as in this 26kb removal) collapsing should be the first remedy. Once something is collapsed, it ceases to encumber the flow (and the scrolling) and can always be deleted later; and if the collapse was unwarranted, it can easily be undone, no matter how many intervening edits have happened, whereas undoing a removal after intervening edits could be so complex as to make it unlikely anyone would attempt it. This favors the unilateral remover, and simply cannot stand. Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack/Archive 21. Is this the issue being discussed? I still have access to it. Can someone tell me if the Nonstart subject matter is available to the community. I will try to do anything I can, to do the proper order of operation. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOT is policy and it says quite clearly that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. Emphasis added. I routinely delete article talk page comments that contain no plausible discussion of how to improve the article, with an edit summary of WP:NOTAFORUM. In my view, "vaguely relevant" is far too low a threshold. Comments like " "I am the biggest fan of celebrity X" or "I think celebrity Y is overrated" or "Hey celebrity Z, I am going through hard times and I am hoping that you can help me pay my hospital bills" are all "vaguely relevant" but still should be deleted on sight. Collapsing this kind of stuff just encourages curious editors to uncollapse and waste their precious time. Cullen328 (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. But I think the really relevant bit of WP:NOTFORUM is Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. (my emphasis) Paradoctor (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm the party who is guilty of starting this issue, so my thoughts may be highly biased. Here are my two cents.

You have got no less than three separate problems at hand:

1. decide under what circumstances is a removal of article talk page content allowed
2. update the WP:TPG so that it reflects the decision (with more clarity than the current guideline)
3. figure out a "method" that enables an editor to contest an instance of talk page content removal; the "method", whatever it turns out to be, would be subject to abuse by frivolous objections, and that must be taken into account; the "method" must be obvious (perhaps: described in WP:TPG ), in order to prevent future inappropriate talk page content removals.

Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not possible to write down rules for when inappropriate commentary is bad enough to warrant removal. Normal Wikipedia procedures will have to apply, namely someone will do a bold removal with a polite explanation in the edit summary, then others can decide if they feel like making a fuss. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"then others can decide if they feel like making a fuss" - I see a problem with this part. Who are the "others"? Uninvolved editors might interpret WP:TPG incorrectly, due to a lack of clarity in the guideline. In my case, the end result was highly towards "remove" action, while most opinions on this page seem to be gravitating towards "keep", "archive" or "hide under hat".

Perhaps a venue should exist for contending talk page deletions, where complaints would be examined by experienced editors. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: WP:TPO already says: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. That is an incomplete answer to your OP, but does seem to cover at least a portion of it. If you "ran the zoo", what changes would you make to the guideline? I'm a little concerned that this is enough of an edge case that we can't write rules around it without an unacceptably high amount of instruction creep, but I believe I could be convinced of a change if others felt strongly otherwise. VQuakr (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note that the Arbitration Committee has defined some cases where removal of talk page content is explicitly permitted, see WP:ARBECR. Zero^talk 10:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Don’t overthink it. If you think a talk page comment is inappropriate, feel free to remove it… BUT… if it is returned, don’t edit war by removing it again. Instead, either ignore it (usually the best option) or briefly respond but don’t engage further. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  ^ That's the best advice that I have seen about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree if the material is innocuous, but if it is the type of thing that ArbCom made the rule in order to exclude, then it should be excluded and the unqualified editor should not be able to bludgeon it back in. Otherwise there is no point to having the rule. Zero^talk 12:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Again, my thinking … If another editor is insisting on returning the sort of material ArbCom has a rule about, I probably need to bring it to the attention of an admin (or at least other experienced editors), and let them deal with it. In the meantime… I should not make the situation worse by engaging with the disruptive editor. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Some Follow-Up Comments Regarding Removing Material

I have a few comments. First, I will restate that I think that the editor who deleted a post because it was a non-starter was acting in good faith but was seriously mistaken. There was a consensus against the proposal, and a consensus should be recorded. A second editor might offer the same idea, and seeing that it was already considered and dismissed may avoid spending more time on a non-starter.

Second, the talk page guideline on removal of off-topic material is interpreted differently by different editors, some of whom do not think it is unclear, but have different ideas as to what it means. That is even worse than a guideline that is widely recognized as unclear.

Third, in my opinion, the guideline should state clearly that collapsing or moving off-topic material is usually preferred over deletion, unless the material is harmful, inappropriate, or nonsensical. The guideline doesn't say that at present. Some change to the guideline to state that collapsing or moving is normally preferred over deletion is the main change to the guidelines.

Fourth, the situation in which ArbCom authorized deletion of talk page posts appears to be when the topic area is subject to Extended-Confirmed Protection as a contentious topic, but where the page has not been protected to enforce the restriction. That was not the case in the original example.

Fifth, where should disputes over the deletion, moving, or collapsing of talk page posts be discussed? Disputes over the editing of the article are discussed on the talk page. Where can disputes over the editing of a talk page be discussed? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is very sensible. I’m in favour of you making the changes proposed in your third point.

Regarding your fifth point, an independent venue for this seems excessive. Perhaps this page can be updated to make clear that inappropriate removal of talk page content is disruptive and within the purview of ANI. Riposte97 (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

where should disputes over the deletion, moving, or collapsing of talk page posts be discussed?

What are we doing, right here, right now? Asking for a friend. Paradoctor (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

As I see it, point #3 is the one that is potentially actionable on this talk page, beyond simply exchanging thoughts, as it suggests a revision to the page. If I put it as a proposed addition, it might be: Collapsing or moving off-topic material is usually preferred over deletion, unless the material is harmful, inappropriate, or nonsensical. I don't disagree with it, but I'm also not convinced that it's really needed. Between saying only that it is "usually preferred", and by not defining "inappropriate", it becomes a pretty minimal guidance. I'm concerned that it would lead to more arguments over how to apply it, than to clarity over the right thing to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for update of WP:TPG. Feel free to improve it.

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If an objection is raised, the removed comments should be restored, unless they obviously violate guidelines on this page. Removals of talk page contents are contestable at WP:ANI.

If you make anything more than minor changes, it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[potential libel removed by ~ ~ ~ ~]".''

- Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The following is not yet an RFC, but in the near future, either this or something similar will be an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Off-topic posts

I suggest that we add after the three bullet points Collapse, Move, and Delete, three more bullet points:

• Note 1: When there is any doubt as to how to deal with off-topic posts, or posts that use the talk page as a forum or soapbox, the material should be collapsed or moved rather than deleted, because deletion is likely to prove controversial.
• Note 2: Talk page posts that are inappropriately collapsed, moved, or deleted may be restored, but restoration is likely to prove controversial.
• Note 3: Misuse of talk pages is considered disruptive editing, and disputes over the removal (collapsing, moving, or deletion) of talk page content may be taken to WP:ANI, but an editor should read the boomerang essay before any report to a conduct forum.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

deletion is likely to prove controversial Not my experience. Sure, occasionally I get pushback, but in most cases where I delete stuff, it sticks the first time. Paradoctor (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

When reading the suggested additions, I see almost nothing that connects them specifically to "off-topic" posts. In my view, the suggested additions apply in general, so they should be added before the "Examples" bullet list.

Also, "Note 2" is vague again. The word "inappropriately" can be interpreted in many ways. It must somehow describe what should be restored, with more precision. For example: "Most cases of appropriate removals are described in the Examples bullet list below". Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that, if this were proposed as an RfC, it would be unlikely to get consensus, as WP:CREEP. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. So, if there is a proposal, the text to be added must be kept short and concise and precise. However, we are currently just discussing what should be added, as a first approximation.

Also, when an RfC is proposed, it would be good if we can present evidence of confusion and misinterpretation by multiple editors. So, after we agree on the text, we should find examples of previous interpretations that are in obvious contradiction with the new clarified text. Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not think Note 1 is helpful, it leans towards filling talkpage archives with junk. Further, when there is doubt, in my experience the usual practice is simply to leave it. Collapsing is used when a topic is disruptive in other ways than being off topic, such as duplicating another discussion or breaking a moratorium. Note 2 seems redundant, all reverts may be controversial. 3 is fine but also obvious, not sure it needs stating outside of perhaps the "Misuse of talk pages is considered disruptive editing" point. CMD (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think note 1, or something similar, is certainly needed. The present position is that posts that an editor unilaterally deems junk are removed entirely. That’s not helpful. I propose that the standard approach be to collapse, and then letting the archive bot deal with it. I’ll try my hand at drafting something based on Robert’s point.

In terms of examples, one that springs to mind can be found here. In that instance, a user offered the fact I had restored disputed content to a talk page as a point against me in a discussion about banning me. Riposte97 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing others' comments doesn't say that that editors can delete any comment they feel is junk. It cautions against editing or removing comments by others, discusses what types of posts may be considered harmful, and discusses different ways of handling off-topic comments. isaacl (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC says It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to ... the article). The last point is also covered by WP:NOTFORUM. Certes (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is part of the discussion to which I referred. It's within context of the overall discussion that advocates caution and discusses other ways of handling comments than deleting them. isaacl (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Your example (this one, I guess) is too complex to immediately decide, in my view. It might be considered (or not) that the contested talk-page content was both harmfull (i.e. insulting) and untrue. But, I can't tell, because I'm not an expert in the field. Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t believe one need be a subject matter expert to observe the following:

• Nothing in the contested comment is harmful. It does not contain a directed personal attack. Generally being insulting is not a ground for removal.
• Being untrue is not a ground for removal.

Herein lies the nub of the problem. There is so much confusion surrounding the rules that you and I cannot agree even with the benefit of the preceding discussion. Riposte97 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that generally being insulting could be a ground for removal. But I can't tell whether your example is insulting or not, and neither can most people. I won't go look up what AGM is, because it would be like a sheep staring at the airplanes. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I won't go look up what AGM is That's the problem. Had you looked at the context the comment was made in, you'd have seen that that "AGP" is used there as shorthand for "autogynephilia". Or you could simply have looked it up at AGP.

You being confused here is on you. If you don't read the rules, which includes investigating anything unclear to you, then their clarity doesn't really matter, does it? Which brings us back to what I already said: This is not a problem that can be solved here. Paradoctor (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Completely disagree. We are here trying to clarify the rules for talk pages, not trying to clarify what AGP is, and whether it insulting or not to make an implication that some group of people has AGP.

Also, nobody here is contesting that insulting material should be removed. So, the one being confused is you. Z80Spectrum (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

If the only objections to the contested comment are WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, then the comment should not be removed. Z80Spectrum (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Offtopic material is harmful: it frequently provokes editors into wasting time, and it frequently drowns out constructive material. I've seen quite a few talk consistingly almost entirely of offtopic stuff. Good luck searching for previous consensus on something in such a mess. Or simply navigating to what you need.

You may have noticed (or not) that the policy WP:NOTFORUM only mentions deletion explicitly. Moving/collapsing/archiving are deletion lite, i. e. compromises useful only to avoid drama when participants may be expected to go ballistic, when behavioral issues can be expected to arise. Fighting to keep offtopic material on display borders on disruption, and often migrates there. Paradoctor (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

While off-topic material is harmful, I don't see the contested comment as being terribly WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. The only point you might have correct is that the discussion seems to be about creating a new article, and such discussion might not necessarily belong to the contested talk page. But, this is a very edgy issue. "Collapse" would have certainly been a better option in this case, IMO.

I don't see the contested material as violating WP:NOTFORUM, as it primarily applies to the article content, and not to the talk page content. Talk pages are there to discuss various concerns, and that is exactly what the contested comment is doing.

I repeat, unless an objection is made that the contested comment is harmful (i.e. insulting), the comment should (probably) not be deleted. The editors who originally objected to the contested comment and to the Riposte97's actions can clear up the question whether the comment is insulting or not. Z80Spectrum (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Missed that you were talking about that particular contested comment. I thought you were talking in general: We are here trying to clarify the rules for talk pages, not trying to clarify what AGP is After all, this is what the present discussion is about, a proposal to change the guideline.

As regards the example you mentioned, that should not have been deleted, neither insulting nor off-topic. Could we move on now? Paradoctor (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we can move on, as far as I am concerned. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that example is relevant here. This subsection is about off-topic posts, your example was not removed due to being off-topic. CMD (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There's no harm in simply blanking any kind of FORUM or SOAPBOX post and if it is controversial then let it be restored. 99% of the time the violator will simply go away. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2:

Since everybody went silent here, I had no other optiton but to make my proposal. I might be unavailable in the next few days, so I might not be able to reply. I have tried to make the proposed additions succinct and clear. Feel free to comment, because that makes it easier to improve the proposal.

I propose a change to the last paragraph before "Examples of appropriately editing others' comments" list, (here).

The paragraph should be expanded as follows:

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.

• If you make anything more than minor changes, it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[potential libel removed by ~~~~]".
• Avoid deletions of article talk page material, unless they obviously violate guidelines on this page. When there is any doubt, the material should be collapsed or moved rather than deleted.
• Disputes over the removal (collapsing, moving, or deletion) of talk page content may be taken to WP:ANI, but an editor should read the boomerang essay before doing so.

Z80Spectrum (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't make ANI people's first stop. WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says we should try the user's talk first: talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages

As regards the "Avoid" point, this feels WP:CREEPy to me. Paradoctor (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I substantially agree. However, I think the opening sentence could be clearer. Also taking Paradoctor's concerns into account, a revised formulation:

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but only in rare instances where policy clearly and uncontroversially dictates. If an objection is raised, it is best to stop and apply WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE.If you make anything more than minor changes, it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[potential libel removed by Riposte97 (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)]".

I don't think there should be any general requirement to leave a note, etc. Frankly, it's not the ultimate insult to be reverted much of the time, and if we're already in this territory, certain passages are best removed quietly, esp in the case of serious examples like WP:PA. Editors should be free to use their heads.

Disagree with @Riposte97's suggested additions as being unnecessary intensifiers: "clearly and uncontroversially dictates" is three words to argue about, rather than just one. I'll go for two:

Removing another editor's comments should be done with caution, and only when clearly justified by site guidelines.

is fine. I also think we shouldn't rope editing cart blanche in with removal, as there are many situations where an unobtrusive edit (like adding or fixing a template at the Teahouse or ANI) is expected and a non-issue. Remsense诉 07:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Riposte97 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I like Remsense's formulation, but I think editing should not be excluded. Adding / fixing templates is already included among the allowed edits.

Also, we should drop the last paragraph, instead placing Remsense's formulation at the end or directly after the first paragraph:

Removing or editing another editor's comments should be done with caution, and only when clearly justified by site guidelines.
Paradoctor (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that we are slowly getting to the center of the problem. Let me explain.

The problem of the "only when clearly justified by site guidelines" formulation (and similar ones) is that it is not precise, and it is often misunderstood, IMO.

For example, WP:OR is also a site guideline. However, if you read WP:OR it it also says: This policy does not apply to talk pages. But, I got hammered by several people who were all quoting WP:OR as a justification for removing talk page material. All of them were long-time editors, plus one admin. It was simply unbearable.

WP:TPO already lists many examples, and there is no need for it to also refer to site-wide policies that might or might not apply to talk pages. We shouldn't be saying to people "now, you should also read 200 million other guidelines to figure out whether a deletion is warranted". Instead, the best and the most precise formulations is something like "don't break guidelines on this page" (well, IMO). Z80Spectrum (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Please provide an example for your OR-on-talk issue, I'd like to have a look at this. Maybe OR needs clarifying, but without evidence, that should prove difficult.

As for your proposal, I agree with the thrust, but we can do better: only when clearly justified by this guideline. Less words is better. Paradoctor (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a native english speaker, so I'm terrible at concise phrasing. I try to do my best, but it is hard.

We have to do another re-formulation of the proposal, because at this point I'm unable to track all the changes.

All the users mentioned below persisted and often repeated their allegations of WP:OR, even after long discussions. They also often cited other policies which don't apply to talk pages. Examples (hopefully in chronological order):

• User:Chaheel Riens: [1]
• User:Remsense: [2]
• User:VQuakr [3] (he is mostly talking about WP:SYNTH, partially intermixed with WP:OR, but is apparently applying those policies to talk page material)
• User:Nick Moyes [4] (admin)
• User: Dionysius Miller [5] (a new user) A few posts later, he wrote quite a long "rationale", and he says he worked 5 hours on it (I believe he did). However, the rationale looks quite wrong from every possible perspective when applied to talk page material.

Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

not a native english speaker Neither am I. ;) Don't sweat it, you're not alone in here.

at this point I'm unable to track all the changes Take your time.

As for the OR-on-talk issue, I haven't done a full analysis, that would take me hours. But I think I got the gist of it.

• That the article split suggestion was reverted together with the rest was infelicitous, but understandable in context.
• Dionysius Miller did agree with you that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages.
• The proper rationale for the removal of the contentious material is quite simply WP:NOTFORUM (policy) / WP:TALK#TOPIC (guideline). Original research, when discussed on talk, is offtopic, as it is general conversation about the article's subject. So citing WP:OR as reason, while technically incorrect, is absolutely in keeping with the spirit of the talk page rules.

Now, I presume you have things to say on this. Please do not reply here. That would be offtopic. Either do it on my talk page, or invite me to your place. Paradoctor (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll reply here with things that I think are relevant here.

We are talking about clarifiying rules of WP:TPO. My examples were about other editors justifying removal of talk page material with WP:OR policy, which clearly states: This policy does not apply to talk pages. My examples show multiple experienced editors misinterpreting the WP:OR guideline, but not because of what WP:OR states, but because the vagueness of WP:TPG. What you have said about my examples might be either true or false, but it is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, and it is irrelevant in the context in which I provided the examples. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You haven't shown any examples of editors misinterpreting WP:OR. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I did, just four posts above. They are not misinterpreting only WP:OR, but also a bunch of other policies, in the sense that they think that those policies apply to talk page material, where those policies apply entirely or almost entirely only to article content.

I really don't undertand this confusion. I have provided the examples, with one link per exemplified editor. All the links work on my computer. Is this talk-page web application working correctly? Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The links work. They don't show what you believe they show because you're not understanding the underlying reasoning. The purpose of a talk page is to discuss improvements to article content. Extended use of original research in a talk page doesn't by itself violate WP:OR, but it is pointless because it by definition isn't related to article content. VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Well whichever way the error fell, I think we can agree that greater policy clarity would be useful. If nothing else, it would save everyone a lot of time disagreeing over it. Riposte97 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but now is appears that not only is WP:TPO ambiguous, but that there are at least two widely different explanations of what it means. So, which side is right? Or, is the truth in between?

We won't be able to write an improved guideline if we don't agree what it actually means.

Anyway, you have to allow me to post my viewpoint, since VQuaker just posted his viewpoint.

I think that explaining what WP:TPO means contributes to clarity, and to the end-solution. It allows us to see where the disagreements are, and that is the only way to eventually clarify the policy.

In the end, we will have to vote about the actual meaning of WP:TPO . Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, VQuakr, thank you for the clear explanation, which is always welcome.

However, I beg to differ. IMO, talk page material shouldn't be deleted due to alleged violations of assorted policies (like WP:OR), because it prevents a discussion whether the material actually violates WP:OR. Whether talk page material actually violates WP:OR is usually a complex issue, which is exactly why it should be discussed on talk pages, and the reason against deletion. Essentialy, it is a problem of circularity.

Your line on reasoning includes an asserion that use of original research in a talk page ... by definition isn't related to article content, which I disagree with. WP:OR might or might not be off-topic when present on talk pages. I repeat again that WP:OR states: This policy does not apply to talk pages.

In my case, I used some alleged WP:OR to generate more accurate images for the article. The talk page material that contributed to better-quality images must not be deleted, so that it can be discussed (about whether material is WP:OR or not, whether it is accurate or inacurate, whether it provides better quality, etc...).

WP:TPO already states: Off-topic posts: Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution

WP:TPO also states: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my basic objection to VQuakr's argument is that it is a form of circular reeasoning. Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be opposed to a rule supporting removal, on sight, of discussion items that merely touched on WP:OR-adjacent content. That's not what's under discussion here, though. VQuakr (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Riposte97: I'd need to see a specific proposed diff to know my opinion on such a change's utility vs the default of avoidance of instruction creep. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Opinion poll (about "delete" action justifications)

There are at least two widely different interpretations of WP:TPO. Therefore, the WP:TPO is significantly ambiguous at this moment.

The purpose of this opinion poll is to serve as a guidance for improving the text of WP:TPO

This opinion poll is not official. The purpose of the poll is to find out what is the prevailing interpretation. You are welcome to comment and to post your thoughts on further improvements of WP:TPO.

In the discussion so far, a few different interpretations have been put forward.

IMPORTANT note: all votes towards Option VX also count towards Option VV.

The poll question is: what should WP:TPO suggest as valid justifications for deleting talk page material?

• Option DD: strongly suggest that deletions of talk page material should be justified only by examples and guidelines mentioned on WP:TPG, or directly linked from it. (supported by me, with rationale given in this post and in this post)
• Option VV: strongly suggest that deletions of talk page material can be justified by any other Wikipedia guidelines or policies besides WP:TPG.
• Option VX: strongly suggest that deletions of talk page material can be justified by any other Wikipedia guidelines or policies besides WP:TPG, even when those guidelines or policies state the opposite at the first glance. (example: WP:OR , WP:NOTFORUM WP:TALK#TOPIC policy) (this option is supported by user:VQuakr, with rationale given in this post, and user:Paradoctor in this post and by other posts that user:VQuakr made in this topic).
• Option SE: something else. Preferably, post a short explanation of your vision.

- Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC); edited 2024-02-21T17:01:22‎

@Z80Spectrum: Please strike your claim and by user:Paradoctor in this post, because it misrepresents what I said. NOTFORUM refers to WP:TALK#TOPIC, and the latter is part of TPG. I also explained how OR text, when on talk, violates TPG.

Whether you get that or not: Strike the claim, it's not yours to make.

When you do, please observe WP:TALK#REVISE: if anyone has already replied [...] deleted text should be marked with <del>...</del> [...] add a new timestamp, e.g., <ins>; edited ~~~~~</ins>, using five tildes, after the original timestamp at the end of your post.

You might want to review item 2. e. of WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Paradoctor (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope I did it all as you requested. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not an accurate summary of my position. I don't think meaningful results will come from this straw poll prompt. VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Then, please write your summary of Option VX, as I am unable to understand it better. I tried to do my best. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

How about you just refrain from ascribing positions to others, then? VQuakr (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

We can't vote if we don't have summaries of all positions. Please provide your summary. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE. I don't think meaningful results will come from this straw poll prompt. VQuakr (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I think that the question given in the poll is the central problem of WP:TPO. That WP:TPO is ambigous is very clear to me, and it has already been mentioned by other editors here. There is no other way to resolve the ambiguity than to vote on the prevailing interpretation. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

if we don't have summaries of all positions Formulating options is fine. Just don't ascribe them to users. It's not necessary for the poll. Paradoctor (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I wanted to provide some rationales for each option (because the description of each option is quite short), and so I attempted to find what was already said in this topic and by who. It was my attempt to clarify the options. In my opinion, longer "summaries", or detailed descriptions of each option would certainly be preferred. Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to correct myself: I think that a poll is perfectly valid even without rationales (i. e. detailed descriptions) of each option, and even without corrections to the summaries. I have provided the rationale for my preferred option (Option DD); it is linked from the option description. If no one wants to provide rationales for other options, nor different summaries, that is fine, as it does not affect the validity of the poll. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion titled Deletions of (article) talk page material at WP:ANI related to this discussion.

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

Z80Spectrum (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for input regarding talk page use

Improper venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a discussion and dispute regarding addressing a talk page post by an ip that may or may not be trolling or a legitimate request. Your input at User talk:Thinker78#Chemtrails is requested; cordial, objective input is welcome, to provide additional insights. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC) I looked, and you have three admins telling you to drop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Two of them commented before I replied with my detailed rationale and one of them was already involved in the revert dispute. The other is an involved administrator who I questioned their block of someone else. But certainly, I will be mindful of that. Uninvolved community input would be nice and more clarifying of the issue though. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC) None of the admins are WP:INVOLVED since they are all merely performing adminstrative actions. Bon courage (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Are new editors forbidden to discuss contentious topics?

This talk page shows a warning to editors:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

These restrictions are not mentioned in the talk page guidelines. According to the rules described here, are new editors strictly forbidden to discuss this topic on any talk page, except when making edit requests? Jarble (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This is something different from what this guideline says or doesn't say about new editors in general. The restriction you link to was established by ArbCom, and is referring to the need to be extended confirmed in that specific topic area. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how you define a “new” editor. I’m an old fart by WP standards, and tend to think of people who joined the project five years ago as still being “new”… but others may define it differently.

The requirement for achieving “extended confirmed” status is creating a login, waiting 30 days and making 500 edits (to articles about non-contentious topics)… not a difficult thing for a “new” editor to achieve, no matter how you define “new”. Once an editor DOES achieve extended confirmed status they can work on contentious topics - regardless of whether you consider them “new” or not. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No. The restriction applies only to making edits to the article. The warning explicitly states except for making edit requests. Any newcomers can edit the article and discuss edits this way. It's basically an alternative to WP:Pending changes. Paradoctor (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"Making edit requests" sounds a lot more limited than entering into discussions about what should appear in the article (the usual purpose of talk pages). If the intent is to allow non-extended-confirmed editors to engage on talk pages in the normal way, but just not to edit on the topic in article space, then I would submit that the warning is misworded.

On the other hand, if then intent is to bar them from talk-page discussions with the narrow exception of requesting specific edits, then I think that's pretty extraordinary. I could see why you might want to do that in specific cases, if the alternative is having the talk pages effectively DDoSed by IP spam, but it is a very harsh and unusual remedy and ought to have a high bar. --Trovatore (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing keeping them from making their case when a request is not approved right away. The restriction is intended to head off disruption, not to prevent constructive discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a gray area based on the wording, but even if that is so, your first sentence is still very very far from being able to participate normally in talk-page discussions. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course. That is the whole point. Paradoctor (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not a grey area. They can make an edit request. If it is not approved they are not permitted to try an establish consensus for the edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're telling me they are not allowed to, say, point to guidelines that support the proposed edit, or add sources justifying the edit, then the talk page warning needs to clarify that. Paradoctor (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As I say, even if they can do that, that is still very very far from normal talk-page interaction. --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that "not permitted... establish consensus" meant that they cannot point to guidelines or sources as part of the edit request. They certainly can do those things, so long as it is part of the edit request. The point is that they are not permitted to go on and participate in further discussions. And that's based upon a lot of experience with chronic disruption within the specific topic area. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I located the bone of confusion, courtesy of BilledMammal: edit requests and the subsequent discussion of their edit requests. It's still not clear to me whether that is intended to be excluded or not. Paradoctor (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of what editors here may prefer, this is something that ArbCom, and the community on ArbCom pages, have discussed extensively. Example. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Um, your example is about AfD, not articles. Or did I miss something here? Paradoctor (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You didn't miss anything. I was talking about the ArbCom policy in general, and the nature of that discussion was to reaffirm the ECR restriction, strict as it may be. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was about the applicability of ECR to AfD. It said nothing about article talk. Paradoctor (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about the ArbCom policy in general, and the nature of that discussion was to reaffirm the ECR restriction, strict as it may be. It was an example. There have been multiple other discussions, and I see no reason for me to list all of them here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's the discussion that resulted in the tightening of ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a better example. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

And here's the ArbCom page about the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom discussion

Hi. There is an ArbCom discussion with one of the main topics being ip talk page posts. It is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. Your input is welcome. This notice is placed to attract objective input (whether in favor or against) of uninvolved editors related to the interest of the talk page guideline. It is not canvassing,

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: Thinker78 (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Why have I been pinged here? I'm aware of the discussion, thanks. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect § Deprecation of redirecting the talk page of a mainspace redirect

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect § Deprecation of redirecting the talk page of a mainspace redirect. Nickps (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)