Bulbapedia talk:Talk page policy

New policy!

Actually, it's the same policies as before. Except we had two. So I merged them together.

• Old talk page policy
• Old talk abuse policy

If there are problems with anything, bring them up here; the old talk pages are now archived (1, 2). —darklordtrom 05:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion from revamp s1

Looks good. Maybe add a clarification that certain messages on user talk pages can be deleted. You have one section saying that abusive messages can be removed by any user, and the next saying don't delete any comments. Obviously the meaning as-is is that they can't remove any comments not fitting in the above category, but some users could probably use clarifiaction. You'd hope it wasn't needed, but maybe there should also be something on what is and isn't abusive. Some users could try and abuse that loophole to remove anything they don't agree with.

There's also nothing on signing or {{unsigned}}. I think I saw someone told that there's no point putting {{unsigned}} on comments more than 6 months old. That's probably the kind of thing that could be made official. And you've got "an staff member" in the "What do I not use talk pages for?" section. Werdnae (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of "How do I use a talk page" how about "What should a talk page be used for". Also possibly remove the first person pronouns from the section headings. The tone in the sections is formal but the headings seem overly chatty and informal and do not strike the requisite note of awe, fear and promises of swift doom to all transgressors. However I am just nit-picking now, it looks good. My two cents, refunds available.--Beligaronia (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs moar of a section on talk page limits. You and I both know a certain user who abuses the talk pages by either adding some +2000 character talk page message per visit, or a three to five paragraph explaining what they did, when it can really be condensed into a single paragraph of like three sentences. To be honest, it's a little unnecessary. D:. --Psy_ライダー☮ 11:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Limits are all very well, but there needs to be some leeway and wiggle room. Sometimes you do need to fully explain your point and justify each aspect of it, and it would seem that the wiki would suffer if people were afraid to explain their point for fear of being too long-winded and getting yelled at. That said they should always try to condense their view as much as possible without losing meaning. So in summary, strict limits are not good, guidelines and advice to simplify your point are good. My two cents, refunds available.--Beligaronia (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. No idea how I forgot the signature. Keep the responses coming. —darklordtrom 11:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Resigning posts (discussion from revamp s2)

Don't see anything about going back to edit talk pages just to sign them and having them give the wrong timestamp - all I see is instructions on using the {{unsigned}} template. It's even on the current article on the signature policy. Either I'm missing it or it shouldn't be there. Ztobor 04:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's how it should be. Thanks. —darklordtrom 11:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing comments

Is it also implied that users cannot edits their own comments, except for using <strike>, once they are placed? My example is here. --rockersk08 16:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Users should only ever be editing their comments to strike them out, correct a spelling mistake that they can't live with being there, as well as the standard other things (redlinks, etc.). Exceptions can be made of course if it is saved by accident. Generally though, users should be waiting for a response to a comment before they edit the talk page again, unless the error has changed the meaning of the comment greatly. It is extremely frustrating to type out a reply to a comment on your talk page, only to be edit conflicted because the page has been edited a dozen times to correct really minor stuff. Werdnae (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving user talk pages

Can the section from this old revision be put back into the page? It clarifies more on archiving user talk pages and why they are moved instead of copying text. Should it get put back in, can it also be noted that after being moved, the main talk page needs the redirect removed? --rockersk08 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. —darklordtrom 08:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)