SmashWiki talk:Talk pages

Policy?

So, I think this should be made into a full-fledged policy. Any thoughts? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 16:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As a policy, no. Are we really going to tell people, "Sorry, but you can't talk about that here. Or that."? I think it should stay as a guideline that people are requested to follow. And can we also get this a shortcut? It has one of the longest SmashWiki namespace names I've seen. Baltro [ talk ] 16:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Smart Baltro is smaaaaaart Koopa Claus ^{Happy Holidays} 16:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I got off topic there, but Baltro has a point. We shouldn't limit how we talk or what we talk about. I do, however, believe that one should not talk about inappropriate things such as (I'll say it in 1337) pr0n or other things such as planning someone's death, making threats, etc. Koopa Claus ^{Happy Holidays} 16:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And of course, NPAs. Baltro [ talk ] 17:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with me. For this NOT as a policy. Masterman Happy Holidays!! 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, yes, we are going to tell people "Sorry, you can't talk about that here." Why is that such a bad thing? The policy has a point; SmashWiki is a wiki, not any other service, and certainly not a message board. It's being used that way, presently, by a lot of people. If outside methods are not viable, there's a service offered by wikia for outside/tangential/social conversations to take place; the IRC channel. We're not even saying 'No.' We're saying 'Not here.' Semicolon (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A link for which is at [1]. Choose a user name (preferably your Wikia username) and select the option of #wikia-smashbros. You'll enter a chatroom type place. If no-one's on, feel free to stick around anyway; I know that I and Shadowcrest and a couple others pop on every once in a while. Really, we'd very much prefer you using that channel as opposed to the wiki for general chatting, especially of the type of "hey, let's brawl!". I don't know about the usability from a mobile device, but otherwise, it's quite easy to use. You are also invited to download your own IRC client, join the freenode server and then manually connect to #wikia-smashbros on your own. --Sky (t · c · w) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad everyone is catching on that making this a policy would tell people that they can't talk about whatever the hell they want on their user talk pages. That is the point. This is not a social networking site. End of story. There are hundreds of other places where you can talk about anything to your hearts content. Just don't do it here. I'm extremely tiered of seeing hundreds of meaningless edits to user talk pages flooding the recent changes. All you have to do is click the IRC link. SmashWiki is not about you. It's about the unregistered people who are looking for information on Smash Bros. They don't care about your upcoming brawl against someone else on the wiki. I don't care about your upcoming brawl. The only people who care are the people brawling. So please, go to the IRC, or AiB, or Facebook, or anywhere but here. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait

So this is going to be a guideline and a policy? Just checking.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 00:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that's the real question, isn't it? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is going to become a policy, it will need to be renamed because the title clearly states that it is a guideline. Y462 (T • C • E ) 00:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Take out the guidelines and just make it SmashWiki:User Talk Pages.UP/T/O 17:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I still remain unanswered...Smoreking^(T) _(c) 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been wanting to see some discussion on this. I've (some) made my point in support of it becoming a policy above. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be moved to SmashWiki:User Talk Pages and have it just be a policy.UP/T/O 17:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be doing that if there are no oppositions in the next week.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 17:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike the idea. I won't bother listing my reasons, but are you going to start blocking people for talking to their friends? That's essentially the difference. One is strongly advisable that they follow, the other is punishable by a block. I think it is a bit extreme. Gutripper^Speak

There are other places to talk to your "friends" that aren't here. Proboards, E-mail, IM, IRC, etc. User Talk pages are supposed to be about user contributions, not to say "OHAI HOW R U 2DAY IM BORED SO LET'S TALK ABOUT RANDOM SHTUFF K" Smoreking^(T) _(c) 20:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

@Gutripper: The problem is that while this may be "strongly advisable" as a guideline, people are just straight up not heading the advice. As has been said so many times before, this is not a message board or a place to have conversations about whatever the hell you want. We've even had kids who's parents won't let them get e-mail accounts using this as their de facto e-mail. That crap needs to stop. Oh, and if you don't list your reasons for being against this, they have no bearing on the discussion. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My question remains unanswered. Are you going to block people for talking to their friends? If its a policy, then talking about anything non-relevant is a breach of policy, and that requires a ban. This is like trying to enforce a law that prevents swearing; there isnt any way you can possibly enforce it. Gutripper^Speak 03:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, not all breaches of policy result in a ban. We don't ban people for having inappropriate signature, we tell them to change it. But they have to change it. Likewise, we will tell people to not misuse talk pages. If they continue to, they will be warned that continuing this use will result in a block, then blocked if they ignore warnings. Oh, and the swearing is a false analogy. This is a very easily monitored and enforced policy. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 03:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A very late reply....I meant a law in real life. Gutripper^Speak 08:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about a real life law as well. I was calling your argument a false analogy, ergo, it's not viable in this argument. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

still proposed?

So, I look over some policies, and I find this here with a tag stating that it's a "proposed guideline". Seems like it's been talked about for a year. I don't know whether everyone here agrees with it, but I think it's about time we decided on whether this one stays or goes. Any thoughts? RAN1 02:15, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable policy, considering what some people are doing with there's...see my talk page, for example, and see what FalconPawnch is doing to it...HavocReaper48!! 02:40, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with the policy, and believe that it should be enforced. PenguinofDeath 22:31, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this as a policy. <br\> I would like to highlight the first clause of the page. "Given the recent influx in users on the SmashWiki[...]" <-- no. SmashWiki is a pretty small wiki- Special:Statistics says that we've had 190 editors make 1+ edit in the last 30 days. I find it highly unlikely that excessive talk page spam can't be dealt with via admin discretion, rather than a blanket policy that is difficult to enforce via an established set of rules defined in a policy page. I feel that if an admin sees a completely irrelevant discussion taking place that is actually to the point of disrupting the wiki, the/my preferred course of action would be to first ask the users involved to find a different venue (IRC, MSN, e-mail, whatever), and if the discussion continues excessively then a short block could be applied (a day or so, maybe even a couple hours would suffice). <br\> Additionally, I feel that there is no real way to even enforce this policy without a major rewrite anyway. When we feel the need to start handing out blocks for not linking images appropriately, replying on the other person's talkpage, etc, it will be a sad day indeed.<br\> Finally, I no longer feel that this is even enough of an issue to even constitute implementing policy. I will not deny that this used to be a major problem, but a majority of those problematic users are gone and those that are still around keep unnecessary chatter on-wiki to a minimum. As of this post, there is not a single User talk: post in Recent Changes, and there are only 2 User talk: posts in the last 100 changes- and they're both wiki matters. Currently, I feel the passage of this policy would be just to counter very infrequent incidents, which is usually a bad idea- making a policy to prevent <negative event> from happening again is pretty fail.<br\> I do agree with most of the content of this page, such as directions on how to link images on talk pages, where to reply, and about the primary usage of user talk pages; however, I feel that this page is better left as a community standard rather than a punitive law. Shadowcrest 23:13, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Salad: I'm not really sure that we actually need this to become a policy. It isn't necessary to enforce it at the moment, due to not so many users being at SW. Anyways, blocking people for not knowing how to link images right is very strange indeed. Small blocks aren't really needed to stop users who take the talk page to be some sort of chat room, linking here should be enough, imo. I say keep it as a guideline, no need to make it a rule that has to be strictly followed atm. RAN1 01:11, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Salad, try to avoid accidental code fails, like when you changed the section title a while ago. RAN1 03:41, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

2 things

1. I think there should be something here about the not removing comments thing. That way, new users will be less likely to make that mistake.
2. We should also have something about keeping discussions on one userpage. It's harder for admins to track discussions if they're on multiple talk pages, especially if it's a discussion involving more than 2 people. Mr. Anon (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

BUMP: The first one needs to be done. The second one is already on the page. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 13:52, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

Several updates

I think that there should be two updates to be made to this.

1. Make this an actual policy.
2. Make the policy prohibit removal of User Talk page comments.

Mr. Anon (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Support

1. I have no problems with 1, and 2 needs to be done, as it comes up quite a bit on the Wiki. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 09:27, 4 August 2011 (EDT)
2. I agree. HavocReaper 22:33, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
3. agreed. ..... Smash454 My life for Aiur! 22:52, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
4. Agree Blindcolours Game Boy 23:02, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
5. Slight support We haven't had problems where users refused to follow what is on here on the basis that they're guidelines, and not actual policy. However, we do essentially enforce what is written on this page as an actual policy, and it would be better to make this official, to avoid problems that can result from them being technically guidelines. Omega Tyrant 13:54, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Comments/suggestions

• If this becomes a policy, I suggest it be moved to SmashWiki:User Talk Page Policy or something of the sort. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 09:30, 4 August 2011 (EDT)

Bump. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

double-bump. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Triple bump. If no one objects within 48 hours, I shall do it myself. ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 18:29, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

I guess this is somewhat null, as my other proposal passed. Perhaps this should be merged with SW:USER? Mr. Anon (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

No it isn't null. No your other proposal did not pass. No, this should be its own policy. DP99 16:43, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

This can apply to all talk pages, so I say no. And why do you keep saying your proposal? The userpage policy that was passed was not yours, it was the one that had been in Limbo for over a year now. Omega Tyrant 16:44, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

The policy was not my proposal, but I had bumped it recently. But I guess our bumps of that proposal were sepparate. Also, if this is to be applied to all talk pages, should its name be changed as such? Mr. Anon (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Yes, but it has to be rewritten a bit before the name is changed, which I can do later. Omega Tyrant 17:35, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

My rewrite to these guidelines can be seen here. Omega Tyrant 20:56, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Anyone have any objections to going through with my rewrite and turning the guidelines into a policy? Omega Tyrant 04:33, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

No, the 48-hour deadline has long passed. ƋoӄԏoяΠɛəи99 _{ROLLBACKER} 18:21, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Deadline or not, if no serious objection is raised, I'll go through with the rewrite tonight. Omega Tyrant 18:30, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Small Addendum

One thing I think needs to be specifically mentioned on this page is that new talk page sections should always start with a Level 2 headline, even if the new section is also the creation of a new talk page. Too often, users make new talk pages without putting a header above their point of discussion, and then every subsequent section begins with a header, making the discussion at the top that lacks a header look out of place and unprofessional. Toast ltimatum 18:41, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

Will be added. Toomai Glittershine The Chronicler 19:00, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

Profanity/Rudeness

I think that it should be put onto this policy page as a guideline under the list of rules for editing. Because being profane rude really doesn't add anything constructive to a discussion, and just causes problems to escalate. Awesome Cardinal 2000 16:11, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

Answer: No. Reason: This. DoctorPain99 18:10, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm not talking about swearing and cursing, just being rude. I've cleared it up. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:18, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

SW:NPA covers what should be covered in that case. DoctorPain99 18:23, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

What about when someone is being rude, but doesn't PA? Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:27, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

There's no reason to have a policy against "being rude". It's subjective as to what that even means, in the first place and isn't really a ban-worthy offense. Again, SW:NPA sufficiently covers what needs to be covered. DoctorPain99 15:50, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Being rude means being disruptive, impolite, and/or uncivilized. That can certainly be a ban-worthy offense if someone is persistently being rude on talk pages, and just because something isn't ban-worthy doesn't mean it can't go on a policy page. It's also possible to be rude without issuing PAs as I said before. Awesome Cardinal 2000 17:34, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

There shouldn't be a policy against it, though. It's not necessary. We have a policy against being disruptive already, and rudeness without being disruptive, while I don't necessarily endorse it (though I'd say I'm pretty damn uncivilized), it isn't something that needs to go on a policy page. This is the internet, and a certain deal of acceptance goes along with that, including accepting that people aren't always going to be 100% polite to you, and if you can't hang with that, you shouldn't be on the internet. It's not going to be all rainbows and puppies where everyone gets along even if we instate this "rule". It's pointless. DoctorPain99 17:39, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Of course we won't be able to get rid of all disruptiveness and uncivilized behavior. But we can still discourage it to prevent it from happening as much as possible, because rudeness usually leads to something worse such as a personal attack. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:50, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

If they Personally Attack, then we can discipline them for that. Writing a rule about it won't really discourage it, and i'm sure it won't really be enforced. This doesn't really solve any problem. DoctorPain99 18:53, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Frankly I think WP:PBAGDSWCBY applies here. Toomai Glittershine The Steppin' 18:56, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

Overall I'd like to add a note saying something along the lines of "always keep in mind that there is a living, breathing human behind the keyboard of every user you reply to, and consider your posts appropriately." Mr. Anontalk 21:19, 29 July 2013 (EDT)

One Example

Here's one example of inappropriate talk page usage:

"I dreamed about you last night." (Smashworker101 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2014 (EST))

Please don't make unnecessary comments like this, thank you. Qwerty (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2014 (EST)

The big template

Is adding the big template disruptive? Smashworker101 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2015 (EST)

Generic section headers

These are blatantly inconvenient for two main reasons:

• It makes navigating talk pages harder since section links from Recent changes or manual usage of # won't always link to the intended sections.
• It obscures the content of a new talk page section by not clearly indicating the subject. Which do you think is more useful, a header that says "Hey" or a header that says "Could you help with _____"?

Forgive me if I was a bit heavy-handed in adding it to the policy page, but I don't see what could possibly be controversial about it. Miles (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2016 (EST)

For me, it's mostly because "Hi!" is my most used section header. I find it polite and convenient (usually I use it only when reminding people of policy) Serpent King 17:56, 15 January 2016 (EST)

Also, I don't relish the idea of telling people off for something so minor. Serpent King 18:00, 15 January 2016 (EST)

It's not intended as a "literally never do this ever or you're in trouble" as much as a "please don't do this in the interest of clarity and ease of navigation". Miles (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2016 (EST)

I have readded your bit, modified in a way that better conveys that tone. Serpent King 18:09, 15 January 2016 (EST)

Yeah, that's a fair compromise. Again, sorry if I was a little too vehement or absolute in my wording. Miles (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2016 (EST)

For me, what I mostly do is say "Ey" or "Yo" as the header and then have what I need to ask as the body. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 18:24, 15 January 2016 (EST)

Should we maybe make the reason you shouldn't clearer? The problem isn't misinterpretation - the message is literally less than an inch below the header if you don't know what the message is about. The problem is navigation, as going to User talk:Miles of SmashWiki#Question could take you to any of thirty different headers. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 20:33, 15 January 2016 (EST)

Question

How does one change their signature? Alex Parpotta (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2017 (EDT)

Special:Preferences. You can change your signature from there.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 14:01, 7 July 2017 (EDT)

Thanks. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 14:14, 7 July 2017 (EDT)

Proposed revision

I would like to suggest the following sentence be revised:

• Old: Adding a signature if you forgot to sign. However, this must be done immediately, and before another user adds the unsigned template to your unsigned comment. Removing an unsigned template and adding your signature in its place will not be allowed.
• New: Adding a signature if you forgot to sign. This should be done in a reasonable time frame, and without disrupting a conversation.

I think that this deserves to be changed in light of situations like this today with 67.171.49.66/C0liosi and Black Vulpine-- while BV was *technically* correct in undoing his signing, he logged in to sign his own comment within 10 minutes (and only a whole 3 minutes after the unsigned tag was added for him, which even then only happened not because he didn't sign, but because he signed "improperly" with his username when he wasn't logged in), and I don't see how that could possibly be considered problematic behaviour except under the technical text of this policy. I think we as a community should be able to exercise better discretion than this, and in particular when up for debate I absolutely expect administrators to be able to exercise discretion over this. – Emmett 06:23, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

Support: I've personally never really understood why the rule is like that to begin with. VoqéoT 07:09, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

Support, way I see it, the unsigned template is for documenting the poster of unsigned comments on closed discussions. If the discussion is still open, all slapping an unsigned template there and forbidding the addition of a proper signature does is say "ha ha, you forgot your sig". Where possible, proper signatures should always be favoured over unsigned templates. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 07:35, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

I must admit, I had actually considered leaving it as an unsigned, but changing the IP to the name. I ultimately decided against doing this because while I recognised the user to be registered, it was one that had zero history (and was not created today), and did not think it would matter. I know that seems kinda weak, but ultimately, I felt it was best to simply follow protocol. If that means I'm still getting frowned upon for my actions, then I will simply Support this proposal and call it a day. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 08:07, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

I'm not blaming you for following the rule, I just think the rule is bad. – Emmett 08:10, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

Question about proper talk page usage

Is it acceptable to thank someone for rewording an edit that you made because you worded it in an awkward way and they fixed it? I really want to show gratitude in some way. --Apocalypso (talk) 14:18, March 6, 2020 (EST)

Is the 32KB standard before requiring archiving still relevant?

The standard on avoiding having talk pages go beyond 32KB was codified back in the 2000s, when internet connections were generally much worse, and computers and other internet-browsing devices were far far weaker, so I'm wondering is there still possibly anyone out there who would possibly have trouble loading and using talk pages beyond that size? Is it really the standard that should still be enforced? I can't say I'm knowledgeable enough about the issue to be sure, but 32KB always felt overly restrictive and possibly based on antiquated standards even over a decade ago when I first became active here. Omega Tyrant 01:12, February 28, 2021 (EST)

After Toomai pointed out on discord that Wikipedia now uses a 75KB standard for archiving, I want to officially propose we update our archiving standard to 75KB too, as it does seem more reasonable and much less restrictive (e.g. back in the prime of my activity, I had to archive my talk page about every month or two, which just felt excessive, and any lengthy conversation with a couple WoTs could use up much of it). If you are a current active user who does actually have an inability to properly load or edit pages larger than 32KB, please speak up now. Omega Tyrant 18:22, March 2, 2021 (EST)

I definitely support increasing the recommended size from 32KB. After all, this very talk page is larger than that, and isn't too bloated just yet. However, I don't think adopting Wikipedia's 75KB standard is necessarily the best option for this Wiki. Wikipedia talk pages can get extremely bloated as is, and individual sections on said talk pages tend to be much longer. Thus, if we used the same standard, the number of sections on a typical talk page on the verge of being archived would be quite a bit higher here, making the talk pages even more bloated. It's also worth noting that a lot of talk page discussions on Wikipedia are archived in chunks, meaning once a specific discussion on the talk page is clearly closed, just that discussion's section is archived. This practice also helps to cut down on bloat on the Wikipedia talk pages, but here, we generally archive talk pages in their entirety, once the talk page becomes too large. Thus, our talk pages will likely bloat even more. Combine these points with our lower activity, making cutting down on the frequency of archiving less pressing an issue, and I think it's clear that Wikipedia's standard works better on Wikipedia than it would work here. May I suggest a lower value for the standard, like 50KB for instance? Alex the Weeb 18:37, March 2, 2021 (EST)