18,539
edits
User talk:Nescientist: Difference between revisions
→Talk page policy: new section
Bfdifan2006 (talk | contribs) |
(→Talk page policy: new section) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
We just don't like them because you can use the {{User:Bfdifan2006/code|[[pasture]]s}} syntax to get the link to [[pasture]]s. It's that easy considering this feature of the MediaWiki software. And this applies to other links displaying as plurals, e.g. {{User:Bfdifan2006/code|[[Badge]]s}} as [[Badge]]s. --'''''[[User:Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:turquoise">Bfdifan2006</span>]]''''' <sub>([[User talk:Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:lime">T</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:orange">C</span>]])</sub> 21:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC) | We just don't like them because you can use the {{User:Bfdifan2006/code|[[pasture]]s}} syntax to get the link to [[pasture]]s. It's that easy considering this feature of the MediaWiki software. And this applies to other links displaying as plurals, e.g. {{User:Bfdifan2006/code|[[Badge]]s}} as [[Badge]]s. --'''''[[User:Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:turquoise">Bfdifan2006</span>]]''''' <sub>([[User talk:Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:lime">T</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:orange">C</span>]])</sub> 21:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
:And yes, I'm talking about the {{red link|Pastures}} redirect that was just deleted. --'''''[[User:Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:turquoise">Bfdifan2006</span>]]''''' <sub>([[User talk:Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:lime">T</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:orange">C</span>]])</sub> 21:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC) | :And yes, I'm talking about the {{red link|Pastures}} redirect that was just deleted. --'''''[[User:Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:turquoise">Bfdifan2006</span>]]''''' <sub>([[User talk:Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:lime">T</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bfdifan2006|<span style="color:orange">C</span>]])</sub> 21:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC) | ||
== Talk page policy == | |||
While I understand I am not a staff member, and I do try to avoid focusing ''too'' much on cleaning up talk pages, I feel like my removal of the responses to comments that are over a decade old on the Masuda method talk page was justified. Force Fire has made it clear in the past that correcting old misinformation on talk pages is not necessary or important, particularly if the users that the comments are responding to have not been active in years and likely will not see them. | |||
I am more than happy to be lenient, and I understand that cleaning up talk pages should not be the main focus of my edits (and they aren't), but responses to comments from twelve years ago seem flagrantly unnecessary and pointless, and few people will see them as most users look to the bottom of the page for new comments anyway. | |||
If the discussion is that important to start up again, it should probably be in a new section at the bottom of the page. But to me, the discussion does not seem important. People should not be looking to the talk page for accurate up-to-date information, as that is what the main article is for. I do not believe it has ever been a priority to make sure that the talk pages have accurate information, as the talk pages are for discussing improvements to the main article, and if the improvements have already been made, and nobody disagrees, a discussion is probably not needed. | |||
Moving forward, I will continue to be mindful not to be overzealous in removing comments, and in more ambiguous situations I will consult a staff member, but in this particular situation, I do think the comments should be removed, as to discourage the behavior. Thank you. [[User:Landfish7|<span style="font-family:Tahoma"><font color="F34134">'''Land'''</font>]][[User talk:Landfish7|<span style="font-family:Tahoma"><small><font color="8334B7">'''fish7'''</font></small></span></span>]] 13:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC) | |||