Bulbapedia talk:Talk page policy: Difference between revisions

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (reply)
(→‎Resigning posts: new section)
Line 6: Line 6:
:::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.--[[User:Beligaronia|Beligaronia]] ([[User talk:Beligaronia|talk]]) 21:13, 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.--[[User:Beligaronia|Beligaronia]] ([[User talk: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. &mdash;'''<span style="font-family:Verdana"><span style="color:#000">darklord</span>[[User talk:The dark lord trombonator|<span style="color:#0047AB">trom</span>]]</span>''' 11:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your feedback. No idea how I forgot the signature. Keep the responses coming. &mdash;'''<span style="font-family:Verdana"><span style="color:#000">darklord</span>[[User talk:The dark lord trombonator|<span style="color:#0047AB">trom</span>]]</span>''' 11:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
== Resigning posts ==
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 <nowiki>{{unsigned}}</nowiki> template. It's even on the current article on the signature policy. Either I'm missing it or it shouldn't be there. [[User:Ztobor|Ztobor]] 04:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:28, 1 September 2010

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

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)