Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Talk pages

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

The resulting WikiProject was created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Talk pages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Talk pages


Description

[edit]

I don't know if this should be a project of its own or a taskforce of an existing project. The intent is not to make substantive (non-minor) changes to any talk page (since of course that is forbidden). Our scope would cover talk pages in any namespace. Our aim would be to encourage the adherence to WP:TP and WP:TPG.
Here are some examples of the type of thing we would do: [1] [2]

We would:

  • Sort topics into chronological order with the oldest at the top
  • Correct any obvious indentation mistakes
  • Clean up formatting mistakes, such as tags that didn't get closed
  • Sort misplaced comments into the correct topic or add a topic header when needed
  • Remove off-topic comments and warn the user
  • Add the appropriate WikiProject banner(s) while keeping such boilerplates and related templates down to a reasonable maximum

And we might even:

  • Help SineBot by signing unsigned comments
  • Help MiszaBot et al. by archiving discussions
  • Discuss proposed talk page guidelines
  • Develop talk page templates

We would not:

  • Restructure user talk pages that aren't formatted according to community norms (since users have control over their own talk pages)

Thanks to Bob and Kayau for their ideas which contributed to the above lists.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 21:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

Please specify whether or not you would join the project.

  1. -Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 21:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I like it! and it's something I already tend to do anytime I come across a messy talk page. -- Ϫ 08:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. This new version has clear agreeable objectives, and I should hope that the standards for indentation and such are fairly loose, as strict standards might easily cause users to engage in reverting the efforts to "improve" the layout. Archival would definitely be appreciated on all sorts of pages. Consider me a part-time member of the task force. :) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I do a lot of this sort of cleanup anyway. I would add several points to its list of in-scope activities, such as DEFAULTSORTing, putting bio cleanup categories on talk pages (Category:Place of birth missing (living people), etc.), and removing {{Talkheader}} from all but the most controversial pages (and making sure {{Archivebox}} replaces it for talkheaders also using the archive functions), fixing mangled headings, merging duplicate threads, marking resolved topics with {{Resolved}}, and much more. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 10:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your ideas and advice on what needs to be done would be valuable to this project, as you are a more experienced editor than I. Thanks for your comments.
    -Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 17:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I proposed a similar WPP and I'd still join something like this. As Bob the Wikipedian said above, Garrett W.'s proposal is better and clearer than the previous one ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support the idea, but I the description might use some tweaking. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost BACK FROM EXAMS 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As long as this project does not become overly bureaucratic (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured talk pages or Category:Talk pages by quality), I support the idea and its proposed implementation. –Black Falcon (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Only Partial Support: Editors should have control over how their talk pages work. Mod mmg (talk)
    And they still will. I didn't intend that user talk pages would be restructured if they didn't comply with community norms – should have made that clear.
    -Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 23:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support -- with some reservations -- As Mod mmg and Black Falcon stated above, I would support this, as long as it didn't start adding more bureacracy and stiffer rules to the talk pages. As long as the project stuck to fixing vandalism, clearing up blatant violations of the Talk page guidelines (screaming profanity at people and threatening to kill them, etc.), tidying up project banners, or fixing formatting errors, I don't see a problem with it. I would very much have a problem, on the other hand, if the project tried to develop and impose more rigid talk page guidelines. Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I already do this kind of cleanup as I make assessments. Most of the suggestions so far seem to be heading in a good direction. Sarilox (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

FYI

[edit]

If you haven't already, you might want to notify people from the previous Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Talk page. Also I'm not sure this is useful as an individual project, as most talk page behavior should be standard among all WikiProjects. Do you have any maintenance categories or some other way to find talk pages which need attention? Oh, and that big all caps template hidden above is to try to avoid proposal subpages from becoming orphaned. -Optigan13 (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's certainly helpful. Didn't know there had been a similar proposal before.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 18:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no, I don't have any maintenance categories at this point (since the project doesn't exist yet). Do you think that would be a worthwhile thing to have, or do you have any alternative ideas?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of what you've suggested above are possible issues on any given talk page, but there is no way to find those among the millions of talk pages on wikipedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings and Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes already standardize warning messages and article template boxes. Think of it this way, if I told you I saw ten different talk pages with some combination of out of chronological order discussions, unclosed tags, and misplaced off-topic conversations, but I can't remember what pages they were on, how would you find those pages, or any other pages with those issues? I don't see anything in Category:Wikipedia maintenance that this project could work through similar to the other maintenance projects. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we'd want to create one then, right?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we create some unobstructive template (haven't decided what format yet) that says something along the lines of "It has been requested that this talk page be reviewed by the Talk Page Task Force. Reason: {1}", where {1} is a field the nominee can fill in the reason he or she has requested the review. This template should also includeonly a category which might be called Category:Talk pages needing attention from the Talk Page Task Force. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project name

[edit]

What should we name the project? Please vote support or oppose on whatever number(s) you have an opinion on, or add your own to the list (and then vote for it).
(I just came up with these in 5 minutes so don't judge me! )
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 06:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Just plain-ol' WikiProject Talk Pages (WPTP) as the proposal is named
  2. Talk Page Organizers (TPO)
  3. Talk Page Organization Club (TPOC)
  4. Talk Page Cleanup Crew (TPCC)
  5. Talk Page Maintenance Crew (TPMC)
  6. Talk Page Janitors (TPJ)
    • Oppose this one and the below - they're mainly AmE so to maintain an NPOV I wouldn't touch these with a barge pole.
  7. Talk Page Janitorial Staff (TPJS)
Couple notes, calling it a Task force carries a specific meaning which would entail being part of a larger wikiproject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Identify the best structure for more explanation. Also if you decide on a project and a name other than WikiProject Talk Pages, make sure to create redirects from the more standard name to your project page and any project banner/template. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know that about "task force" – I just put that in the list because Bob used it in his example up there.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment about "Talk Page Cleanup Crew": While that name clearly reflects the cleanup focus of the project, it does not really account for other tasks, such as "discuss[ing] proposed talk page guidelines" and "develop[ing] talk page templates". –Black Falcon (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are right, we should probably call it "WikiProject Talk pages", but what if we referred to ourselves as the Talk Page Cleanup Crew in the templates we might use on talk pages that need attention? As in, "This talk page may need attention from the [[WP:WPTP|Cleanup Crew]]." Do you think that would be too confusing? I mean, we could create any necessary redirects and stuff. Similarly, what about making our "needing attention" category say something like "Category:Talk pages needing attention from the Cleanup Crew"? (We could link to the project on the category page.) To me, that looks more attractive and meaningful than "Talk pages needing attention from WikiProject Talk pages".
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the link leads editors to the same location, as you indicated, I don't see anything wrong with using "Talk Page Cleanup Crew" as an alternate name for "WikiProject Talk pages", where appropriate.
For the categories, "Talk pages needing attention from the Talk Page Cleanup Crew" definitely is better than "Talk pages needing attention from WikiProject Talk pages"; the former title clearly indicates that some sort of cleanup is involved, whereas the latter does not specify what type of "attention" (cleanup, dispute resolution, making an edit to a protected page, etc.) is required. Another option would be to use a general maintenance category, such as Category:Talk pages needing cleanup, much like the Guild of Copy Editors uses Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. –Black Falcon (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! And I thoroughly approve of using that general maintenance category for our purposes. Much more concise and to-the-point, plus an editor does not have to be a member of this project in order to use the category to make our kind of edits.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but a few problems

[edit]

(I'm back from the school project) The idea itself is good, but there are some probs with the description bit:

  • Sort topics into chronological order with the oldest at the top. Topics are supposed to be in chronological order anyway, so this isn't needed. Besides, some talk pages put the oldest ones on top and others put the newest ones on top, so wouldn't be extremely difficult to carry out?
  • Correct any incorrect indentations. Unecessary. While people might mess things up by using wrong indentations, it's OK as long as we understand. Besides, what's the use of correcting them if nobody looks at that part of the discussion any more?
  • Clean up formatting mistakes, such as tags that didn't get closed. Unecessary as above. That sounds like something to correct in the article or WP namespaces, but not talk pages.
  • Sort misplaced comments into the correct topic or add a topic header when needed. Oh come on. Regular editors of the talk page can do this themselves. Don't need a talk page group to do that.
  • Remove off-topic comments and warn the user. Any good vandal-fighter should do this. And if it's not vandalism the regular editors of the talk page should be able to handle that.
  • Add the appropriate WikiProject banner(s) while keeping such boilerplates and related templates down to a reasonable maximum. This is good. Don't take it away. That's what a group like this ought to be doing.
  • Help SineBot by signing unsigned comments; Help MiszaBot et al. by archiving discussions. Bot's aren't people, you don't actually have to help them. It will take ages to sign people's comment anyway.

So the only thing useful about the proposal seems to be the templates... Instead, this project could:

  • Organise talk pages
  • Discuss proposed talk page guidelines
  • Develop talk page templates

Won't that be better than helping people do boring manual work? Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost BACK FROM EXAMS 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe you're missing the point. While several of those things might be unnecessary in a perfect world, the reality is that it happens a lot, and such things are not always corrected by "regular talk page editors". And while some issues may be trivial, our goal would be to make talk pages as clear to read and as uniform across the site as possible. You can't know that "nobody looks at that part of the discussion any more".
Also, you mentioned that the project should "Organise talk pages". Is that not what I've suggested already with the objectives you've disagreed with?
And the last two objectives you proposed sound good – I think I'll add them to the list.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still have my doubts about the first one. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 00:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I ever came across a talk page that organized its posts in reverse, I'm sure I wouldn't change that. (I've never seen any such page – could you show me an example?)
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 01:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOTD/N/IR. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 12:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but if you'll notice, that's not a talk page.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 15:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clever-clogs, but I still have some vague idea of a talk page that does the the other way around. Cheers, Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 09:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it appears that an "issue" with a talk page is there by design, then I think it would be prudent to avoid changing it or to post a brief comment before carrying out any major restructuring. However, since reverse-chronological ordering of discussions will not be an issue on many talk pages, perhaps an extra cautionary note to that effect in the instructions would suffice? –Black Falcon (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should think so.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

If this project is formed, I would like to ask its members to generally avoid "correct[ing] any incorrect indentations" and "sort[ing] misplaced comments into the correct topic or add[ing] a topic header when needed". The original context of a comment can be important and should not always be standardized across talk pages. Making such changes could change the flow of a discussion, since often it is not immediately obvious whether a comment is intended to be a reply to another editor, a follow-up on a previous comment, or just an improperly-indented general comment. In other words: avoid editing talk pages in a way that may change the flow or meaning of inactive or ongoing discussions. –Black Falcon (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! My intention regarding indentations and the like is to only make changes when the mistake is an obvious one. I wouldn't want to change the flow or meaning in any way that does not reflect the original intent of the commenter(s). I do realize that such situations do not always have clear-cut solutions. In order to guide the members of the project, maybe we could make a subpage that would have examples of such things accompanied by the correct judgment & action to take. Of course we would err on the side of caution.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 00:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to suggest that such changes would take place due to deliberate action, but rather accidentally. A cautionary note and examples could be helpful, but my concern was prompted by the use of the word "any" in "Correct any incorrect intendations", so limiting such changes to cases where "the mistake is an obvious one" and avoiding edits to discussions where there is doubt about the intended indentation would largely address my concern. So, thank you for your response. Cheers, –Black Falcon (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, ok. I didn't even notice that flaw in the wording; I'll fix that now.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 11:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! –Black Falcon (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few more suggested tasks

[edit]

Over the past few days, I have been checking talk pages during the course of my regular editing to see what other tasks may be part of talk page cleanup, and here is a list of some ideas:

  1. Confirm bot assessments of article class and remove "auto=yes" from project banners (e.g., here);
  2. Date signed but undated comments;
  3. Expand month abbreviations in dates to help archiving of talk pages by bots (e.g., replace "25 Jan 2010" with "25 January 2010");
  4. Replace IP signatures pointing to a red link IP user page with a link to the IP's contributions history (e.g., here); and
  5. Pipe-link unlinked user names in signatures (e.g., replace "Example 12:00, 25 January 2010" with "Example 12:00, 25 January 2010").

Of course, all of these are minor tasks, so perhaps it's too early in the process to suggest them. –Black Falcon (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 01:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

forum-like structure

[edit]

Why not develop some forum-like structure for talk pages? It would solve the problem of inexperienced people (like me) making blunders when editing these text files (like I will invariably). This is one of my first posts and I find this very daunting as opposed to posting on a forum. Posting on a talk page should just involve pressing a button that says "add post" then typing in a text box. Cleaning up talk pages is just repairing damage; why not prevent this damage in the first place? An embedded chat box for easier and less formal discussion would be cool but I'm not totally sure if this is the right place to discuss that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.mynoduesp (talk • contribs) 20:46, January 30, 2010

You get used to the current format. mw:Extension:LiquidThreads is an attempt at a different format for talk pages, strategy:Village pump is an example of it in use. I'm not sure what the people proposing this are trying to address in the long term, but issues people have in the short term. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having it forum-style interferes with the editors ability to customise the way their user-page works (some people have very strong opinions on how they want their talk-pages formatted and reply procedures).Mod mmg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Um, this isn't the right place to discuss this. Try Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 03:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Talk_pages&oldid=1255133516"