Surely this talk page etiquette should be reviewed.
[edit]
"And, forgive and forget when someone changes a nasty comment to something more civil and productive."
Obviously, this rule doesn't work, and really, only puts more stress and pressure on someone. A prime example of this is, User:Antandrus - been attacked for 16 years, obviously, someone shouldn't deserve this for reverting Ljupco's attacks or simply edit a wiki. While I usually just laugh at GRP's attacks towards me (not funny towards others), but for me, once it gets 15 years, it does get annoying. So seriously, while one offs can be forgiven, it being continuous is not.
Thanks, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're suggesting. The quoted guideline at Wikivoyage:Using talk pages is not about someone making a nasty comment and leaving it. It's about someone making an intemperate comment in the heat of the moment, and then regretting it and changing it to something more civil. Nurg (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh i see. Apologies SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
San Blas Islands - by boat
[edit]Hi,
San Blas Islands - by boat
I've notice that there are 2 listings here for Captain Jack. Both businesses are now closed.
Mamallana hostel although stilled operating no longer books boats from Panama to Colombia via San Blas.
What is the protocol to delete these ?
Kind Regards, D 190.102.58.75 21:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you posted here, rather than at Talk:San Blas Islands. The protocol is for any user - in this case, you - to delete any listings for closed businesses and type "closed" or something similar in the "Summary:" box below your edit screen. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Clarity on changing others' talk page comments
[edit]We now advise:
- "Unlike everything else in Wikivoyage, it's considered bad form to change someone else's posts on a talk page – even to correct spelling or grammar."
Why are we so vague about this? I propose to be clear, and change this to:
- "Do not change or delete someone else's posts on a talk page – even to correct spelling or grammar, unless it is to remove comments that violate Wikivoyage or Wikimedia policies."
I cannot imagine why we would allow someone would change or delete someone else's talk page comments, other than in those circumstances. Ground Zero (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm all for clarifying, but there may be special circumstances where edits should be allowed. I am not sure everything is covered by "that violate Wikivoyage or Wikimedia policies".
- Removing a rude (part of a) post is sometimes good, but must be done with due consideration. I think I have been having a discussion on that somewhere. How and when isn't easy to describe. This might fall under the policies (be polite), but just removing rude posts is not always the best path.
- Indentation is sometimes fixed – sometimes a tricky one. New threads are often moved down, or even to another talk page. Headings are added. Signatures are added. All these can take a comment out of context.
- Link fixes are sometimes accepted.
- There may be cases that more clearly need to be exempted than these.
- –LPfi (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would welcome amendments to this proposal. Like any policy, it can be changed at a later date if problems with it arise. From time to time, regular contributors have corrected an error in my comment and notified me of it. I don't think this needs to be spelled out as it is something done between experienced editors.
- I also think that we should not worry too much about getting this exactly right as pretty well anything will be an improvement over "it's considered bad form", as if we sitting around the cigar room of a gentleman's club during the interwar period. Ground Zero (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Right. How about this? "The rule is to never change or delete someone else's posts on a talk page – even to correct spelling or grammar, unless it is to remove comments that violate Wikivoyage or Wikimedia policies." In rare exceptions in which you know the author would appreciate your timely correction of a really confusing or problematic typo, you must inform them right away, and there are cases in which charts on talk pages are updated as part of discussions, but we don't need to mention those, just say what the rule is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with either yours or GZ's, though I think technical fixes are fine. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 02:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I'm just not clear what part would be added to the policy. Is it just "The rule is to never change or delete someone else's posts on a talk page – even to correct spelling or grammar, unless it is to remove comments that violate Wikivoyage or Wikimedia policies." Or is there more?
- It looks like you've added only "The rule is", which I don't think adds anything to my proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I change "Do not" to "The rule is to never," because there are rare exceptions, but we shouldn't mention them specifically. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I prefer my version, but I'm okay with yours. Ground Zero (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Do we have agreement? If no-one objects, maybe we can add this language in 48 hours or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I prefer my version, but I'm okay with yours. Ground Zero (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I change "Do not" to "The rule is to never," because there are rare exceptions, but we shouldn't mention them specifically. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with either yours or GZ's, though I think technical fixes are fine. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 02:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Right. How about this? "The rule is to never change or delete someone else's posts on a talk page – even to correct spelling or grammar, unless it is to remove comments that violate Wikivoyage or Wikimedia policies." In rare exceptions in which you know the author would appreciate your timely correction of a really confusing or problematic typo, you must inform them right away, and there are cases in which charts on talk pages are updated as part of discussions, but we don't need to mention those, just say what the rule is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Did this need to be discussed?
[edit]See this edit. I think it should be uncontroversial, but if anyone would like to argue that we should say that talk pages for destination and policy pages shouldn't ever be archived, please speak up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- That seems like a ridiculous rule. Thanks for changing it. Ground Zero (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- IMO an uncontroversial and no-brainer fix which has been de facto unwritten policy anyway. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed it has. Glad you guys are OK with the change. I definitely think it's a no-brainer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- IMO an uncontroversial and no-brainer fix which has been de facto unwritten policy anyway. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
User talk pages
[edit]Recently I've noticed users deleting content on their talk pages. I think we should make clearer within this page that discussions on user talk pages should not be deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Seeing what coaching other editors have been doing informs my decision on what tone to take with a newbie. If there's been no coaching, I want to be supportive and encouraging. If I see that they are ignoring the coaching, then I take a firmer tone. Ground Zero (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Right. User:SelfieCity, I'm glad you brought this up, because I don't believe there is actually a policy forbidding users from deleting the contents of their user talk pages, including others' remarks. If we want to prohibit that, we need to make the prohibition explicit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Also I have understood that we don't control deletion of talk page content by policy, like many other projects do. I agree with GZ that user talk pages have an important function in showing whether there are controversies about their contributions or behaviour here. I see no problem in forbidding such deletions, except for archiving (after a reasonable time – I have seen people archiving threads after a day or as soon as they've read it), vandalism, attacks and uncivilised language. For the latter two, there are obviously problems in drawing the line to justified criticism, which should be handled in some way. In many cases the last three should be deleted (in some cases with a reworded summary of that which was removed) by any established user who sees it (not by an alter ego). –LPfi (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Right. User:SelfieCity, I'm glad you brought this up, because I don't believe there is actually a policy forbidding users from deleting the contents of their user talk pages, including others' remarks. If we want to prohibit that, we need to make the prohibition explicit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've always been under the impression that it's fine to remove content on your talk pages, so long as it doesn't detract content (such as making someone else's comment seem out-of-place), so long as you don't delete the talk page itself since removed discussions can still be viewed in the page history. //shb (t | c | m) 08:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that that is the policy now. I think we are discussing changing that policy. Wikivoyage user talk pages should serve the needs of Wikivoyage, rather than being considered "personal space" of the user. Ground Zero (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oh right, I'm fully on board with that. Either discussions have to be archived or left as-is; obvious vandalism, spam, attacks and other trolling are exceptions to the rule IMO. shb (t | c | m) 10:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that that is the policy now. I think we are discussing changing that policy. Wikivoyage user talk pages should serve the needs of Wikivoyage, rather than being considered "personal space" of the user. Ground Zero (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- @SelfieCity, Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek, LPfi: How's the proposed wording?
- Unlike most WMF projects, the English Wikivoyage does not permit removing talk page comments – discussions must be found somewhere, whether it be on the talk page itself or an archive. Although deleted discussions can still be accessed via the page history, they are considerably harder to access; leaving the discussions in place also allows for greater transparency.
- Exceptions can be made in the case of vandalism, spam, trolling or anything clearly defamatory. Use your judgement; if unsure, leave it to another established editor to determine.
- //shb (t | c | m) 09:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- The statement on other projects is unnecessary, and I'd add that archival shouldn't be done too soon (less than a week is unreasonable). Otherwise the wording seems good (with minor copy edits). –LPfi (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I prefer to mention it because it's permitted on the English Wikipedia and Commons, where a significant portion of our new editors come from. //shb (t | c | m) 09:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I understand, but saying that it is not allowed at Wikivoyage in English should make the thing clear whether or not the rules are different where they come from. –LPfi (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I mean fair enough I suppose. //shb (t | c | m) 11:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't see this earlier; I've been traveling! Good to see that there's been some productive discussion about this issue. I support the proposed wording, but without the caveat about other projects. Saying "English Wikivoyage ..." is sufficient. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Done, with the first four words omitted. //shb (t | c | m) 11:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't see this earlier; I've been traveling! Good to see that there's been some productive discussion about this issue. I support the proposed wording, but without the caveat about other projects. Saying "English Wikivoyage ..." is sufficient. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I mean fair enough I suppose. //shb (t | c | m) 11:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I understand, but saying that it is not allowed at Wikivoyage in English should make the thing clear whether or not the rules are different where they come from. –LPfi (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I prefer to mention it because it's permitted on the English Wikipedia and Commons, where a significant portion of our new editors come from. //shb (t | c | m) 09:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- The statement on other projects is unnecessary, and I'd add that archival shouldn't be done too soon (less than a week is unreasonable). Otherwise the wording seems good (with minor copy edits). –LPfi (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
