Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

The purpose of a talk page (accessible via the "Talk" tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss editing that page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. While talk pages in other namespaces (such as user talk pages) may be used for broader discussion and communication between editors, article talk pages should be used solely for discussing the improvement of that article.

The names of talk pages associated with articles begin with Talk:. For example, the talk page for the article Australia is named Talk:Australia.

The guidelines below reinforce the prime values of talk pages: communication, courtesy, and consideration. They apply not only to article discussion pages but everywhere editors interact, such as deletion discussions and noticeboards.

Central points

Maintain Wikipedia policy

There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."

Creating talk pages

Talk pages are generally created by clicking a red "Talk" tab and creating the page, like any other page.

Do not create an empty talk page simply so that one will exist for future use. There is no need to add discussion warning templates to every talk page, or even to every talk page that contains a discussion.

How to use article talk pages

Although this section is specific to article talk pages, many of the general themes apply to all discussion pages that are used for collaboration.

Good practices for talk pages

These guidelines apply specifically to discussion pages which are used for collaboration, which includes just about all talk pages other than user talk pages. The application of these guidelines to user talk pages should be governed by common sense and should not supersede guidelines and policies specific to those pages.

Behavior that is unacceptable

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. From top to bottom: Refuting the central point / Refutation (quotes a point of the argument and explains why it's mistaken) / Counterargument (contradicts and backs it up with reasoning/supporting evidence; risk: strawman fallacy) / Contradiction (states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence) / Responding to tone (criticizes the tone of the writing) / Ad hominem (attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer)
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.

Editing existing comments

Editing others' comments

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to copy edit others' posts. Doing so can be irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is not to edit or remove others' posts without their permission.

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Removing others' comments is prohibited, except on one's own user talk page or if the comments violate scenarios outlined above.

Striking out text constitutes a change in meaning. It should be done only by the user who wrote it, or as otherwise provided in this talk page guideline.

You should generally not break up another editor's text by interleaving or interpolating your own replies to individual points. This causes confusion with who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts, you may wish to use the {{Talk quote inline}} or {{Talk quote block}} templates to quote others' posts.

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes, it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[potential libel removed by ~~~~]".

Examples of appropriately editing others' comments
  • With their permission, such as by invocation of mutual withdrawal or an invitation to modify their comment.
  • Restoration: to restore comments vandalized or accidentally edited or deleted by others.
  • Removing prohibited material such as libel; legal threats; personal details; content that is illegal under US law; or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies.
  • Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that might be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.
  • Off-topic posts: Your idea of what is off topic might differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution.
    • Collapse: If a discussion goes off topic (per § How to use article talk pages), you can hide it using {{Collapse top}}/{{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates. This normally has the effect of ending the off-topic discussion while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. Involved parties must not use these templates to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.
    • Move: At times, it might make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion. You can use the {{Moved from}} template to denote the original source of the content.
    • Delete: It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article).
  • Moving edits to closed discussions: A discussion which has been closed with the {{subst:Archive}} or similar template is intended to be preserved as-is and should not be edited. Subsequent edits inside of an archive box should not be removed for this sole reason, but editors are allowed to move them below the box to preserve the integrity of the closed discussion.
  • Signature cleanup: If a comment is unsigned, you can find the editor who posted it from the page history and append attribution to it, typically using {{subst:Unsigned}}. (This does not apply to RfC statements, which don't need to be signed.) Only if a signature violates the guidelines and policies for signatures, you can edit it to the standard form — {{subst:User|USERNAME}} TIMESTAMP (UTC) or some even simpler variant. If it contains a coding error, you can fix it yourself or ask the editor to fix the problem in their preferences.
  • Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include:
  • Fixing layout errors, such as:
    • Moving a new discussion from the top of a page to the bottom
    • Moving a comment for chronological order within a reply sequence
    • Correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the page's formatting
    • Accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable
    • Fixing other lint errors.
  • Sectioning: If a discussion has developed new subjects or has become very long, it might be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When splitting or moving topics, you can note the changes using the {{Moved to}} and {{Moved from}} templates on both locations. While some reformatting might be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion and preserve attribution, it is essential that the meaning of any comments isn't altered.
  • Removing duplicate sections: Where an editor has inadvertently saved the same new section or comment twice. Note: this does not mean people who repeat a point deliberately.
  • Fixing links to discussions or pages that have been archived or moved, if they are broken due to typos or they unintentionally point to a disambiguation page, etc. Do not change links to go to entirely different pages; if in doubt as to whether a destination is entirely different, you can obtain permission from the editor or ask them to update their own comment. Only fix a link to a template that has been deleted or deprecated if the effect of the new template is essentially the same as what the editor used; otherwise, allow the comment to red link to the old template, as a broken post is preferable to one with altered meaning. Internal links made using full URLs may be converted to wikilinks or protocol-relative URLs by dropping the part before the "//", so that they will work across protocols (http:// vs. https://) .
  • Hiding or resizing images: You can resize images if they take up too much space and, once discussion of them has ended, you can hide them. (For example, "warning" icons in bot-posted notices.) Non-free images must always be hidden, even if they're being discussed. You can hide images by adding a colon: [[File:Foo.png|...]] to [[:File:Foo.png|...]]).
  • Deactivating templates, categories, and interlanguage links: You are allowed to prevent templates from being transcluded (e.g., change {{Template name}} to {{t|Template name}}) if the poster clearly intended to discuss the template rather than use it. You are allowed to deactivate category links (e.g., change [[Category:Foobar]] to [[:Category:Foobar]] by inserting a colon) to prevent the page being inappropriately added to a discussed category. You are allowed to deactivate interlanguage links (e.g., change [[it:Foobar]] to [[:it:Foobar]] by inserting a colon) when the link to a page on another language's Wikipedia is meant to appear inline rather than to serve as an interlanguage link for the page.
  • Collapsing large code samples after discussion of the sample has ended, such as fulfilled edit requests.
  • Responding within review comments: Peer reviews, good article reviews, and featured article candidates are collaborative processes in which a reviewer might provide a list of comments on an article; most editors expect the responses to be interspersed among these comments (example).
  • Removing empty edit requests that lack a clear description of the requested change. Consider notifying the user by placing {{subst:Empty edit request}} on their talk page.
  • Comments made by blocked sockpuppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban can be struck through or removed from open discussions. Editors are allowed to simply remove comments made by a sock with no replies, with an appropriate edit summary. If comments are part of an active discussion, they should be struck instead of removed, along with a short explanation following the stricken text or at the bottom of the thread. Striking comments in discussions that have been closed or archived is not allowed.
  • LLM-generated comments: Comments, nominations, and opening statements that are obviously generated by a large language model or similar AI technology can be struck or collapsed with {{Collapse AI top}}. In formal discussions, this sometimes results in the early closure of irrelevant or disruptive discussions; at XfD venues, such discussions can be closed early if they satisfy the first speedy keep criterion. If a worthwhile conversation has already started, it may be left open. The proposer of a closed discussion may be politely invited to start a new discussion using their own thoughts and words.

Editing your own comments

It is accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links, or otherwise improve them, so long as no one has yet responded to your comment. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or simply changed your mind, you may delete your comment entirely if it's been only a short while and no one has replied to it.

But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing it should be avoided as it may deprive any replies of their original context. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. An exception to this rule may be permitted if there is only one reply and it invokes mutual withdrawal.

  • Any deleted text should be marked with <del>...</del>, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text, e.g., deleted.
  • Any inserted text should be marked with <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underscored text, e.g., inserted.
  • Inserting text without deleting any text is ambiguous, since some editors use underscore for emphasis (despite guidance to use italic text). For example: "You commented in April after the previous discussion." Is that insertion, or emphasis? This ambiguity can be avoided by deleting one word and then re-inserting it, as:
    You <del>commented</del> <ins>commented in April</ins> after the previous discussion.
    Thus: "You commented commented in April after the previous discussion."
    Now, it's obvious this is insertion, not emphasis. Ambiguity problem solved.
    In other words, best practice is to (1) delete something and (2) optionally, insert something else immediately following the deletion.
    • <del>something</del> or
    • <del>something</del> <ins>something else</ins>
  • You can add a new timestamp, e.g., [[WP:REDACT|Edited]] ~~~~~, using five tildes, immediately following the original timestamp at the end of your post. However, this will break notifications for anyone who has subscribed to the discussion.
  • To add an explanation of your change, you may add a new comment directly below your original or elsewhere in discussion as may be most appropriate; insert a comment in square brackets, e.g., "the default width is 100px 120px [the default changed last month]", or use [[#New section|<sup>[corrected]</sup>]] to insert a superscript note, e.g. [corrected], linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation.

Non-compliance

Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption. After you have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines (such as indentation, sectioning, and signatures), you are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. Other editors may simply ignore additional posts that flagrantly disregard the talk page formatting standards. You can also expect to have your mis-formatted posts refactored to comply.

Disputes

If you have a disagreement or a problem with someone's behavior, please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Closing discussions

Closing a discussion means summarizing the results, and identifying any consensus that has been achieved. A rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this.

Any uninvolved editor may write a closing statement for most discussions, not just admins. However, if the discussion is particularly contentious or the results are especially unclear, then a request specifically for a closing statement from an uninvolved administrator may be preferable.

Requesting a closure

Any participant in a discussion may request that an uninvolved editor formally close any type of discussion, only if at least one of the following criteria is met:

  • The consensus remains unclear to the participants.
  • The issue is a contentious one.
  • There are wiki-wide implications to the decision.

To request an uninvolved closure, list the discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Ensure that any request there seeking a close is neutrally worded, and do not use that board to continue the discussion in question. If you are requesting attention specifically from an admin, then state that clearly in your request.

Marking a closed discussion

When an issue has been resolved without controversy, this may be marked simply by adding the {{Resolved}} template at the top of the thread, adding a brief statement of how the issue was dealt with. If you took action yourself to resolve the issue you may instead use the {{Done}} template in your own final comment stating what you did. Adding one of these templates will help future readers to spot more quickly those issues that remain unresolved.

When a more complex discussion has been closed, to discourage any further comments you may optionally use the {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} templates (although some particular types of discussion, such as those which concern whether to delete or rename a page, have their own specialized templates) — {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. For example:

{{Archive top|result=Consensus below is in favor of this proposal, (detailed explanation) ~~~~}}
Discussion text...
{{Archive bottom}}

... which produces:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Discussion text...

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If a discussion has been so disruptive or pointless that it is better for editors to waste no further time even looking at it, the alternative templates {{Hidden archive top}} and {{Hidden archive bottom}} can be used instead, to produce a similar "closure box" around it, but collapsed to hide the content, as with off-topic threads. If a particular unconstructive block of an otherwise useful discussion should be hidden, use {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}}.

Technical and format standards

Layout

Indentation and screen readers

New topics and headings on talk pages

Links, time, and page name

Archiving

Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page has numerous resolved or stale discussions – see Help:Archiving a talk page. Apart from the exception described in § User talk pages, discussions should be archived, not blanked.

If a thread has been archived prematurely, such as when it is still relevant to current work or was not concluded, unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive. Do not unarchive a thread that was effectively closed; instead, start a new discussion and link to the archived prior discussion.

In the past, it was standard practice to "summarize" talk page comments, but this practice has fallen out of use. On regular wikis with no "talk" tab, the summary would end up as the final page content. Wikipedia has separate tabs for article content and discussion pages. Refactoring and archiving are still appropriate, but should be done with courtesy and reversed on protest.

Centralized talk pages

Often, there are a number of related pages that would benefit from one single talk page for discussions. For example, a list article may have grown too large and was split alphabetically. Or there may be a set of templates that are used together or interrelated MediaWiki interface pages.

Before implementing a centralized talk page, consider first gaining consensus for your proposal. The main discussion would usually be on the proposed centralized talk page with notices on the pages to be redirected. Notices may be placed on related pages as needed; for example, a relevant WikiProject page or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). {{Centralize notice}} may be used to note the proposal.

If consensus is gained, then:

  1. Archive current discussions on all the talk pages to be centralized; see Help:Archiving a talk page
  2. Check each talk page for subpages. These are usually archived discussions, but other subpages are sometimes created, such as drafts or reviews. See Wikipedia:Subpages#Finding subpages.
  3. On the centralized talk page, list the redirected pages. {{Centralized talk page}} is useful for this.
  4. On the centralized talk page, list all of the archived talk pages. {{archives|banner=yes}} is useful for this.
  5. Redirect each talk page to the desired talk page; see Wikipedia:Redirect. It is recommended that an editnotice be created for the redirected talk pages; see Wikipedia:Editnotice. {{Editnotice central redirected}} is useful for this.
  6. It is recommended that an editnotice be created for the centralized talk page. {{Editnotice central}} is useful for this.
  7. Ensure that involved editors realize that they need to add the centralized talk page to their watchlist.

Examples of centralized talk pages: Talk:List of aircraft, Help talk:Cite errors, Help talk:Footnotes, and MediaWiki talk:Common.css.

Using a FAQ

If the same issues arise repeatedly, it may be desirable to preserve a list of frequently asked questions and their answers using the {{FAQ}} template.

The {{FAQ}} template is especially useful in cases in which:

  1. The discussion forming the consensus was long, and not easy to follow
  2. The talk page gets archived such that old discussions are not readily available

It may be useful to add hidden text into the article (in the portion(s) of the article where an edit against the existing consensus would most likely occur) alerting editors of the FAQ, to discourage the edits against the existing consensus.

User talk pages

User talk pages are subject to the general userpage guidelines on handling inappropriate content (see User pages § Handling inappropriate content).

While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively.

Personal talk page cleanup

The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion.

Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove discussions or comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic, and includes both registered and unregistered users. Note that deleted comments can always be retrieved from the page's history, as user talk pages are almost never deleted (although a courtesy blanking may be requested).

There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags.

You can use the search box below to locate Talk pages. See Help:Searching for more information.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Your posts are automatically signed if you have the "Enable quick topic adding" preference enabled and use the "Add topic" link to create a new discussion or the "reply" link to reply to a comment. To see the "reply" link, you must have the "Enable quick replying" preference enabled. See Wikipedia:Talk pages project § Reply tool for more information.
  2. ↑ Even if you don't sign, it is impossible to leave an anonymous comment because your username or IP address is visible in the page history. Per Wikipedia:Signatures § Dealing with problematic signatures, continued and deliberate refusal to sign posts may result in sanctions.
  3. ↑ The exceptions provided by WP:NOLLM for simple corrections and WP:LLMTRANSLATE apply
  4. ↑ See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 199 § LLM/chatbot comments in discussions.
  5. ↑ See Wikipedia:Large language models § Communicating for why we do this.
  6. ↑ See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 207 § LLM/AI generated proposals?
  7. ↑ URLs of edit histories and revision differences begin with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/, and Wikipedia's robots.txt file disallows /w/.

References