Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Long user talk headers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Although there is some sympathy in the discussion for the complaint about the amount of material on these pages, the consensus does not endorse deletion of the pages as a solution, and is skeptical about whether MFD is even an appropriate venue for discussing the problem. No prejudice against pursuing other solutions, such as discussions with the users or discussions at WP:RFC/U regarding any users who are unresponsive to concerns about their talk pages. --RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Long user talk headers

User talk:YellowMonkey and User talk:Redthoreau Okay. User space and user talk space are completely different things. User space is for the user's user page, drafts, awards page etc. User talk page exists for one reason: to talk to the user. When I see a user talk page I should not see kilobytes upon kilobytes of random unrelated junk, such as:

Photo polls
Barnstars lists
Lists of quotes
Image galleries
Huge userbox lists
Guestbooks inside user talk pages

Note: I am not talking about user talk headers in general; I am talking about the extremely long ones that are a waste of time. They also create very slow page loads on slow Internet connections like mine.

2 examples:

And I'll probably be able to dredge out more.

Okay, that's my rationale, here we go. Access Denied 17:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. MFD is for deleting pages, and that's not being suggested. If the problem is widespread enough, it might merit mention at Wikipedia:User pages, otherwise, user requests to move stuff to the user page or a subpage should be sufficient. Rd232 ^talk 21:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well I've seen user talk pages here at MFD for things like having long drafts hosted on them .Access Denied 21:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specific talk pages, perhaps. But if they were deleted, it was surely for having drafts on them (WP:FAKEARTICLE), not for having enormous headers. Rd232 ^talk 21:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this complaint about misuse of talk pages. The misuse makes accessibility of these users talk pages difficult. Perhaps this MfD belongs at RCF/U. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should try talking to users first. My note to YellowMonkey seems to have prompted this MFD - I haven't had a response yet. Rd232 ^talk 08:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The best way to handle issues like this is to politely ask the editor in question to trim their talk page and wait for a response (I note that YM hasn't edited since 23 November). Jumping straight into an XfD before doing this is totally unnecessary and, given the context of this MfD (it's obviously related to the nominator's comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey#Outside view by Access Denied in which they call for YM to have his admin tools immediately removed and be blocked), seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia's processes to bully or punish an editor. The very vague nomination (a blanket deletion of all 'long talk headers', without a clear definition of what 'long' constitutes) also clearly puts this outside the scope of any single deletion discussion. Nick-D (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please withdraw your accusations of bad faith, which you have been spraying liberally at anyone criticising Yellow Monkey. Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These need archiving, not deleting. Yellow Monkey, in particular, mostly has the images to ask user which is the best choice for Wikipedia. This is valid use of a talk page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the volume that's the issue, not the legitimacy of the specific use. One image poll is fine, but YM has loads. That's far better placed on a user subpage. Rd232 ^talk 13:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone close this MFD please? It's clearly the wrong venue for the issue. Rd232 ^talk 13:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is the incorrect venue. Although the name of the process (Miscellany for deletion) would suggest that only requests for deletion may be heard, in practice it is more a forum for actioning problematic pages; that need not necessarily result in deletion, and indeed many XFDs are resolved by merging, moving, or forking pages. The only other forums that might be appropriate for this request are RFC and ANI, but, they don't have, respectively, the legitimacy or effectiveness of XFD. My overriding argument, though, is that closing this as "wrong forum" is simply sheer rules-wonkery. AGK 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone provides a policy reason to the contrary, I agree with AGK. There needs to be a discussion regarding what to do with pages like these. Yes, the first thing would be to raise the issue on the talk page. Suppose a week then goes by: what next? I support YellowMonkey in general, but it is not acceptable for an active user to have a talk page like that because it is too disruptive for anyone wanting to communicate with the user. Users are free to have appropriate content on subpages, but the talk page is not a place for extensive decoration: it is for the community to communicate. Johnuniq (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry AGK, but I think (based on the fact that you suggest RFC (RFC/U?) and ANI as the only alternate venues) that you've completely missed the fact this MFD is an attempt to make policy, with the two user talk pages explicitly cited as examples (Long user talk headers after all does not exist, so you could argue this MFD could be closed as Mission Accomplished!). The place for this qua policy discussion, which it is, would be Wikipedia talk:User pages. Rd232 ^talk 09:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record and as one of the users mentioned, after a previous similar request last month I moved about 85 % of my TP content to another page - and as a result of this latest request I intend to "undecorate" the page even further. I also agree with some of the above editors who state that an effective first step should be to first ask the individual user in question to address the issue, and only if they refuse, use further wiki bureaucratic measures. Often times in my humble opinion, a sincere and polite request like the ones I have received is far more effective (and time efficient) than a community discussion of third parties. Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see several comments about how contacting the editor is the solution, not this. While discussion works with Redthoreau, this has been brought up several times at User talk:YellowMonkey, with no response at all. What would you suggest be done? Would you have people start new threads daily at YellowMonkey's talk page until he responds? Enigma^msg 21:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "several times", do you mean previous to my comment to him a few days ago? Rd232 ^talk 21:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been brought up with him in the past. Enigma^msg 21:39, 1 December 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.