Editing HRWiki talk:Talk page etiquette

== Notes ==

Reminders to myself: When is it necessary to note an edit conflict. When is it undesirable. What are some options when you get a conflict. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Even though Dot com's just talking to himself over here, it makes for good conversation. We all tend to put "edit conflict" in our summaries or even our edits themselves when we get cut off, mostly because of how annoying it is. But in the end, we probably shouldn't be doing it; everyone's just trying to edit the same page and we already know. &mdash; {{User:Lapper/sig}} 06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::While that is not the reason for my developing this, I agree, it is unnecessary. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I didn't exactly know about the discussion taking place on the Main talk until Qermaq brought that to my attention just moments ago. I guess it would have been better posted there. &mdash; {{User:Lapper/sig}} 06:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::::More notes: Something like: Good posts are written to flow from one to the next and with an eye toward the creating a discussion that stands up over a long period of time. Getting an edit conflict is frustrating, especially if you get several in a row, but it is usually unnecessary to note the fact that you experienced any as you were editing a talk page. Noting a conflict breaks up the flow of a discussion and ignores the fact that talk pages are read minutes, hours, days, or even years after the fact. If you do get an edit conflict, often whatever you had to say could simply be posted (perhaps with one additional colon) right in the thread. Or maybe you could rewrite part of what you wrote to reflect the fact that someone else has just said something very similar. You could even agree with the post that caused the edit conflict. ... And then some more words or something. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 06:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::This could say all that. But how's what I have now? Short, sweet, to the point. Sure, it doesn't go as far into why or give alternatives, but that can be easily figured out. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, a few days have passed. There is one open question above - is what I have currently sufficient on the topic of edit conflicts, or should there be more detail as Dot com wondered? Of course, if other users have comments, pro or con, they are welcome. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:I like it for the most part. I do agree with Dot Com that edit conflict should be it's own point with a more involved comment similar to what he included. - {{User:Ilko Skevüld's Teh C/Sig}} 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::I believe the edit conflict part should be changed a bit. I don't agree with the advice to never note edit conflicts (I find it's sometimes helpful), and I have no reason to believe the community's consensus is against noting them when they're helpful. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 22:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::In what way are they helpful? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::::As I've said a few times, I note them whenever there is a break in the logic of the conversation. This is probably only one in five or six times, but when it happens, I'll usually write ''{edit conflict; written after Lapper's post}'' Not always necessary, but sometimes useful. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::But is that better than simply writing ''{reply to Lapper's post}''? I don't propose the community consensus is that they are not wanted, but I can't accept that it means there's consensus for using them just because it's how we've been doing things. Consensus comes from thought and reason, not mere habit, and I suspect most people who note edit conflicts do so out of habit. Perhaps we should move this to a more central location to discuss whether there is or is not any consensus on either that edit conflict notes are useful or that they are an interruption. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::I have a habit of writing '''Edit Conflict''' whenever I get one, but that's because I thought we were ''supposed to''. When I was a new user (oh so long ago), I saw that people would note their edit conflicts and that's what I thought I should do too. Honestly, it doesn't really do anything besides expressing frustration and disrupt conversation, just like everyone else said. -{{User:Brightstar Shiner/sig}} 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Ironicly, I got an edit conflict after this post...
:::::::''{replying to Qermaq after edit conflict}'' I'm an explanatory person; for me, it makes most sense to know ''why'' someone's post doesn't fit the chronology. At any rate, I would prefer wording such as "it's usually not necessary to note edit conflicts", similar to what Dot com wrote above. Saying "don't do it" just doesn't seem at all necessary to me. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 23:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I can live with that wording, unless there is objection. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 23:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Time ==

Something should probably be noted about replying to really old posts. I've seen that done alot. - {{User:The Joe/sig}} 22:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:The only issue I see with that is there have been a couple of occasions where an old comment seemed unanswered to me and I felt the need to bring it back up.  So if we want to say something about the time issue, maybe it can be worded such as "Please do not reply to posts in outdated discussions, if you feel the topic is still in need of discussion please begin a new line of discussion stating the subject again in your own words with nothing more than a general reference to the previous discussion if needed." Just some thoughts - {{User:Ilko Skevüld's Teh C/Sig}}
::Kinda like what I just wrote? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::EDIT CONFLICT :-P - {{User:Ilko Skevüld's Teh C/Sig}} 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (yea, exactly, Great Jorb on this BTW.)
Even for very old conversations, I don't agree that a new thread should always be started. Sometimes threads just get forgotten, but can easily be picked up where we left off. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:I've reworded some. I agree, there are times when it's done. Can you think of any concrete examples of when it would be appropriate to post in an ancient thread? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::Every now and then, I see things like, "This is an old thread, but we never really reached a conclusion here." Standards for deletion, for example. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Plus, I think that newer users should be given the opportunity to respond to old posts because they may have good points.-[[User:LordQuackingstick|LordQuackingstick]] 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::::While I fully agree ''all'' users have valuable input, sometimes the old thread is simply dead. The usual ''faux pas'' here is to join in the chorus of "me too"s or "no way"s in a years-old thread - which you'll agree is silly, as the item was discussed, decided, and it's done. However, if the item was diced, sliced and dealt out and you think due to more recent information that it was in error, then '''definitely''' bring that up. Still, normally old threads are to be left as a record, with only a few exceptions. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I've always felt it's good in this case to begin with something like "To bring up an old discussion..."; otherwise it looks like you weren't paying attention to timestamps... might that be worth mentioning? {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 23:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Might be worthwhile. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 23:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::EDIT CONFLICT TWICE! Ha ha! Anyways, while I've been guilty of [[Talk:Mellow Mushroom#mellow mushroom food|"me toos"]] myself, I agree they are silly. But I was referring to when they actually have something to say.-[[User:LordQuackingstick|LordQuackingstick]] 23:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Sure. If the item is open and has not been settled, certainly post in that thread. If the item has come to some sort of closure, however, it's best to start a new thread. After all, there are likely more users who haven't been here that long, and starting a new thread tends to (in my observation) get a ball rolling a lot better than opening a new thread. If a closed issue needs reopening, I think that merits a new thread. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Propose move ==

This seems to have settled. Propose '''move''' to HRWiki namespace. Alternately, encourage further discussion on what needs to be done to that end. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:I support the move, as this page is clearly helpful, and the HRWiki namespace is where it should be. I also suggest that we add a notice at the top, stating that it's a draft. I'm sure some points need discussion. For my taste, some of the listed guidelines are too restrictive, while others could be more restrictive. I'm sure the move will speed up discussions.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::Loafing: Please elucidate. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 05:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

::Looks okay, but what's up with all the bold text?  We don't us that to <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=User:Qermaq/Project:_HRWiki:Talk_page_etiquette&oldid=409433 this degree]</span> on any of our other [[:Category:HRWiki Policy|HRWiki pages of this nature]].&nbsp;-- [[User:Tom|Tom]] 04:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Is it a problem or something that's merely inconsistent? They are two distinct things. If it's not a problem, then it' a beneficial thing. If it's not beneficial, the it's a problem. My goal was to bold the salient points similarly to how we bold the elements of an article which serve as the title. I upped the ante, but I believe the intent of the bolding here is obvious.

:::Re: draft notice - I didn't know we even did that. It is of course welcome to the extent such a recommendation is normal. Ideally, discussion would be open to all and largely complete prior to any move. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 05:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

::::It's a problem because we don't emphasize things with bold text like that, anywhere.  Doing it in one place because of a single user's habit/preference/personal&nbsp;style isn't beneficial.  The points seem clearly separated already with the use of different sections, bullets, and paragraphs.&nbsp;-- [[User:Tom|Tom]] 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::I disagree. I think the bold makes the page easy to skim for the highlights and then read the appropriate sections for more context. In addition, I see no reason for a draft notice. I'd also support removing the stub notice. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 05:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::We must remember that this page is intended mainly for new users who may have limited or no wiki experience. I'm of the mind we should use whatever means possible on these pages to ease usability. If it's found that this method helps users, it could even be applied to other pages in the namespace if that were desired. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Qermaq: I haven't seen a draft notice anywhere before. I just thought that it might be confusing for new users if we have a policy page that looks perfectly normal but is really still a draft. Well, the page is beyond a draft, but some bits will probably be changed soon.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 06:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I now support moving the article without a notice. My only concern is that the guidelines for what is allowed on user talk pages are a bit too tight, but we can always iron out those kinks later on. It's a great page you made there, Qermaq.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 05:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:As a number of admins have supported moving to the HRWiki namespace, I will now '''move''' accordingly. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 05:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== Not deleting from talk pages ==

There are guidelines for how to edit properly, but there are non for deleting. We all agree that all talk should stay. But how about a user deleting his own talk page? What about talk pages for deleted articles? Archiving? {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 05:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:Deleting is the same as any page - use the delete templates. If such content is needed, I encourage other users to suggest or add. Archiving: that may be a larger issue than we wish to incorporate here, suggest a separate project on defining that. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 05:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::I didn't mean deleting the whole talk page, but removing conversations from it. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I have added language under the General topic to address this. Comments welcome. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Looks nice. Just what I meant :). {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 04:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== Talk page spam? ==

I've noticed that many new users are unaware that posting the same message to multiple user talk pages is considered spam. I don't see anything about that on this page; maybe it'd be worth including? {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

:Definitely &mdash; good call. {{User:Trey56/sig}} 05:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

::Agree. Added a bit. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Regsrding the recent brouhaha regarding a return message, is there a way anyone can think to reword this point on the page to avoid future confusion? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

== Non-wiki discussion ==

Regarding {{p|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Talk_page_etiquette&diff=482909&oldid=482817 this edit}}, not all discussion is bad that doesn't specifically relate to wiki content. One of the goals of the wiki is camaraderie between its members. Occasionally, for example, I might post on a new user's talk page regarding something they've posted on their user page (about, say, baseball), in an effort to make them feel welcome. In other words, non-content discussion is okay sometimes, as long as one is mindful of the fine line between just right and too much. &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

== Removing posts ==

Isn't {{p|l=http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=HRWiki:Talk_page_etiquette&diff=537392&oldid=528790 this}} already covered under [[HRWiki:Talk page etiquette#General|Editing the talk posts of others]]? If so, what makes the second mention different or necessary? &mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:The first is specific to your user page. The second covers talk pages in geneeral. Feel free to clean up as necessary. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 05:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Clubs and such ==

I am all for community building and making the wiki fun for all to particpate. That said, the recurring "clubs" which arise result in a rather difficult problem. On the one hand, some degree of fannish ceremony is appropriate to engage the user; on the other, Recent Changes need not be flooded with talk posts which are not directly beneficial to the wiki. In particular, the encouragement of non-article-improvement contribution should, in my opinion, be abolished. It's ok to bring the occasional off-topic non-sequitor to the discussion, but to elicit these is beyond the limit. Curious as to how others feel on this topic. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Current revision		Your text
Line 88:		Line 88:

	I am all for community building and making the wiki fun for all to particpate. That said, the recurring "clubs" which arise result in a rather difficult problem. On the one hand, some degree of fannish ceremony is appropriate to engage the user; on the other, Recent Changes need not be flooded with talk posts which are not directly beneficial to the wiki. In particular, the encouragement of non-article-improvement contribution should, in my opinion, be abolished. It's ok to bring the occasional off-topic non-sequitor to the discussion, but to elicit these is beyond the limit. Curious as to how others feel on this topic. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)		I am all for community building and making the wiki fun for all to particpate. That said, the recurring "clubs" which arise result in a rather difficult problem. On the one hand, some degree of fannish ceremony is appropriate to engage the user; on the other, Recent Changes need not be flooded with talk posts which are not directly beneficial to the wiki. In particular, the encouragement of non-article-improvement contribution should, in my opinion, be abolished. It's ok to bring the occasional off-topic non-sequitor to the discussion, but to elicit these is beyond the limit. Curious as to how others feel on this topic. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
-	:I don't see this as a large problem ''usually''. However, there is the potential for these clubs and such to be abused. I recently noticed a fairly large flood of RC due to club-related chatter and did intervening. I don't think we need to make any policy changes, but rather that these clubs should really be handled on a case-by-case basis. Those that cause no disruption can simply be left alone. If a club does start to get out of hand, then it's time to take action. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 05:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)