Jump to content

Help talk:Talk pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indentation

I've had two conversations recently with editors who seem to have been genuinely surprised that Help:Talk pages#Indentation, which has been officially recommended for 15+ years, was widely ignored up until the last couple of years (specifically, after the Reply tool became popular).

That is, we almost always used to have conversations formatted like this:

What do you think about my idea? Alice (talk) 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a question about it. Bob (talk) 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. Chris (talk) 3 January 2021 (UTC)

and now we frequently format them like this:

What do you think about my idea? Alice (talk) 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a question about it. Bob (talk) 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. Chris (talk) 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I remember discussions years ago about why it was bad (according to other editors) for the occasional editor to actually follow the advice on the help page, and I've seen many editors "correct" the indentation for the third comment, if the third editor used the officially recommended style.

I describe the first style as "traditional", and its main advantage is that sighted people can see where "Bob's" comment ends and "Chris's" begins. The main complaint is that you then have to use some basic social and communication skills to determine whether Chris is saying that it's a good idea for Bob to have a question about Alice's idea, or if Chris is saying that Alice's idea is a good idea.

The "HTML semantics" model is clearer about which replies related to which other bits, but makes it harder to notice that an oblong block of text is comments from multiple people, especially if the comments are long and the editors in the earlier positions do not have flashy custom signatures to draw the eye. This occasionally leads to misattribution (e.g., "Chris, what's your question?") and confusion.

I don't think there is anything wrong with either approach, but I've been surprised by how many editors believe that the second is "how we've always done it". If that happens to be your impression, I suggest that you look through the archives from the previous decade at the village pumps or major noticeboards for conversations involving more than two people (and not using bullet points/voting) so you can see how rare consecutively aligned comments were until the last couple of years.

For example, in the archives of this page, there are 13 discussions that had enough people involved for a choice to be made about indentation style (2006, January 2007, March 2007, May 2007, February 2008, August 2008, January 2010, October 2010a (in which two replies weren't indented at all), October 2010b, 2011, 2012, 2017, 2018 – I stopped there, because mw:Talk pages consultation 2019 started soon after that). Only two discussions (March 2007 and 2017) use the indentation style recommended by this help page, and one of those discussions was about the indentation style (so some of the people replying to it had probably read the instructions immediately before replying).

Again, I don't think that there's anything wrong with the style recommended here. I just don't want people to be passing around misinformation about "how it's always been", because it really hasn't always been like that. In fact, one of the things learned during the massive 2019 consultation about on-wiki discussions was that nothing about talk pages is really how it was always done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have found that what's being marked as "traditional" occurring more frequently as a result of implementing the Reply tool. I suspect that rather than going up and clicking on the reply link after the relevant comment, many users (including veterans) typically click on the link of the comment that's closest, usually the most recent one. On venues like the Teahouse where there's a higher influx of new users, I'm more likely to adjust the indentation levels of users who visually look like they're replying to me but are clearly responding to another comment in an attempt to curb bad habits in newbies. If this is a point of contention it sounds like an RfC is in order.
I don't find comment bleeding in the "HTML semantics" model an issue as I use Convenient Discussions, a feature of which is to scan for signatures and create specific containers for comments, even if they happen to be at the same indentation level. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you're seeing a change, then I encourage you to do an actual comparison. Pick the same week from about 10 years ago, and count the numbers.
(I don't think that either style should be considered a "bad habit"; sometimes one or the other makes more sense for a specific conversation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you're particularly interested in this subject, you might be interested in the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 2#Flat versus threaded, [mis]use of indents (two boxed examples, and editors struggled a bit to decide which one was the True™ version of threading) and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 8#Just want to make sure this is 100% acceptable (someone changes the indentation to match what he thinks is correct, and gets told that he did it wrong). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm making is if the style the majority of people use isn't mentioned on WP:THREAD, it might merit adding as there's an unspoken consensus that it's allowed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main reason people use the traditional approach is because they are prioritizing visual differentiation over semantically correct HTML (=LISTGAP-like reasons). I think that a solution that would address both of these concerns is to adopt the kind of formatting that's traditional at the French Wikipedia. Look at their village pumps for an example. The blue shading provides a visual distinction even when the comments are aligned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention refideas?

Would it be appropriate to briefly mention {{refideas}}? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this allowed?

I posted a discussion on a talk page and someone went and deleted it. I feel like they could have just replied back and not delete it which is a little rude. Is that even allowed?

Lucy LostWord 20:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It would have been helpful if you'd linked to the edit that got deleted because it matters in answering your question what the nature of your post had been. I did find it, here.
Before I looked for it, I figured you'd possibly used a talk page for an improper purpose, such as asking a general question about the article's topic or talking about something that the topic reminded you of. These would be improper because article talk pages are only for discussing the state of the article and potential improvements to it. In such cases, it's reasonable to enforce this purpose by removing the post and to explaining why in the edit summary. You, however, were expressing your opinion about the inclusion of something in the article, and it was therefore a suitable contribution. It shouldn't have been removed, and User:Apokryltaros should have responded to you on the talk page. (That being said, instead of creating your own thread, could you have posted your comment in the thread where it had been discussed?) Largoplazo (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Lucy LostWord 04:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will repost it but I wanna add a note talking about the whole deletion thingy. This is was I have:
"I read one of the discussions on here where someone mentioned Anorith (a fossil Pokémon). Someone replied that references to pop culture like that are not necessary or something but considering Chimecho is mentioned on the page for wind chimes (see: Wind chime#Influence) it sounds appropriate that Anorith would get mentioned here. And Armaldo.
(This shouldn't be deleted. I made a post on the help page for talk pages and someone said that this post shouldn't have been removed and that the person who removed it could've just replied.)
(four tilde for signature)"
I am wondering if the note at the end is necessary or not.
Lucy LostWord 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ILike Leavanny, 1) the note at the end is not necessary. 2) you should add your message to the section Talk:Anomalocaris § Pop culture instead of starting a new section. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last post on that was from 2015 so if I did reply it'd be like necroposting
Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 18:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely fine to post in old discussions on less popular talk pages. By the way, last message in that section is by User:Apokryltaros. They are clearly still interested in this article. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Thanks.
Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 13:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this also allowed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Monogatari_characters&action=history

In September I made a discussion on this wondering if some things on the page were made up because I don't know much about Monogatari but some things I could believe and some things just sounded off. Someone had deleted my post and I put it back up only for them to delete it again. Is that allowed? They said my post was "irrelevant" and did not go by the general discussion rules or something which it was not.

Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 04:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ILike Leavanny: Before posting here, you should have read the various notices that are displayed (there are at least four). What they come down to is: this is not a help desk, it the page for discussing improvements to the specific page Help:Talk pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still need help :/ Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ILike Leavanny: Article talk pages are generally for the purpose of improving the respective encyclopaedia article. Maybe what you want is the entertainment reference desk? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Wikilinking to a talk topic

Please add a section on how to wikilink to a talk topic such that the wikilink will remain valid when the talk topic is archived. This might be best expressed as providing a cross-reference to Wikilinks help - once that information has been added to that page, which has not happened yet - but would best still be mentionoed on this page since it is fraught. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two points about: Please add a section on how to wikilink to a talk topic such that the wikilink will remain valid when the talk topic is archived.
—⁠andrybak (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I present H:TPPL on how the new magic talk page permalink feature thanks to discussion tools works. Raladic (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic: There is a serious limitation:

With lowercase sigmabot III pure talk section links (internal link that starts with #) will not work once the section being linked to has been archived. Example link:

  • [[#Thread topic]] - Later note: Works in new tab.

For a section link to work after archiving of the section requires a full talk section link (either internal or external link):

  • [[Talk:Article name#Thread topic]]
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Article_name#Thread_topic

Can this be fixed? Most people, I believe, use the short internal links to link to other talk sections on the same article talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter, the modern discussion tools can automagically search the subpages for the thread, if it was archived. E.g. if you open the following link in a new tab: Help talk:Talk pages#Philosophy of user talkpages, the MediaWiki web UI will show you a banner in the top right corner "This topic could not be found on this page, but it does exist on the following page: Help talk:Talk pages/Archive 2". This is nowadays a builtin functionality similar to a previously available gadget.
You can also click on the timestamp of an individual message to copy a link to it into the clipboard, and this link will work even after archival. Builtin copies a bare URL: [1]. There is also a userscript that helps produce wikilinks directly to individual comments utilizing Special:GoToComment. E.g. Special:GoToComment/c-John Broughton-2007-01-26T02:06:00.000Z-DragonHawk-2007-01-25T01:42:00.000Z links directly to a comment at Help talk:Talk pages/Archive 2#Policy status of this page?. Note how the wikilink to the comment doesn't mention "Help talk:Talk pages" or "Archive 2", it has only two usernames and two timestamps.
Last example: Special:GoToComment/c-Timeshifter-20251220200600-Please add Wikilinking to a talk topic will always link directly to the message I am replying to, even after the message is moved to a subpage. It has a slightly different format, mentioning a single username and a timestamp and the title of the topic. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Andrybak, but you did not address my main point about short internal links to other talk sections on the same talk page. Example link:
[[#Thread topic]]
The link stops working after the linked-to talk section has been archived by lowercase sigmabot III. I have tested this.
I am now testing to see if Cluebot III makes the link work as it archives a talk section. I will know in a few days. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a "short" link to an already archived section: #Philosophy of user talkpages (without <nowiki> tags around it). Opening it in a new tab has the same effect as the "long" link I included in my previous reply.
For the link #Thread topic the popup message is "This topic could not be found. It might have been deleted, moved or renamed." because it doesn't exist in the currently present four archive subpages.
Side note: in the mobile skin Minerva the popups with these messages are shown at the bottom of the screen.
This "search in subpage which are usually archives" logic keeps working even when the short link itself gets archived, i.e. when the linking section gets archived, not the linked-to section. E.g. if you preview #Philosophy of user talkpages on /Archive 4, the Discussion Tools will still find it on /Archive 2. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice before that short section links worked in a new tab. Clicking on them directly did nothing.

I am wondering if the mw:Extension:DiscussionTools work for ClueBot III archiving too. I will know in a few days. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do DiscussionTools work the same with lowercase sigmabot III and Cluebot III?

Andrybak. Does mw:Extension:DiscussionTools work the same with the 2 main talk archiving bots: User:lowercase sigmabot III and User:Cluebot III? --Timeshifter (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The archiving bots don't care which kinds of edits were used to form the discussion pages. DiscussionTools, wikitext editor, VisualEditor, or even MediaWiki message delivery. The only two things the bots need are section headers and parseable timestamps, usually formed as part of a signature. As an example, that's how Template:Do not archive until works – it produces a timestamp in the future, that makes the bots wait until it passes. Template:Undated and Template:Unsigned are used to produce timestamps in the past – both by human users and by SineBot. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood my question.
I understand how the archiving bots work.
What I want to know is whether the archive links you listed in the previous talk section are created regardless of what archiving bot is used. I am talking about the archiving links created by DiscussionTools, not by userscripts.
--Timeshifter (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, the DiscussionTools extension doesn't care who or what or how archived the discussion. It doesn't even matter where the discussion was moved. For more details, see mw:Talk pages project/Permalinks and mw:Help:DiscussionTools#Talk pages permalinking. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see how Cluebot III is no longer the only way to fix links to sections after those talk sections are archived.

I like how Cluebot III fixes links on Wikipedia by replacing them with the archive link. See recent example here:

And it is good to know that using Cluebot III does not effect the functionality of Discussion Tools. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help_talk:Talk_pages&oldid=1330239488"