Bulbapedia talk:Talk page policy

Add topic
Active discussions

New policy!

Actually, it's the same policies as before. Except we had two. So I merged them together.

If there are problems with anything, bring them up here; the old talk pages are now archived (1, 2). —darklordtrom 05:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion from revamp s1

Looks good. Maybe add a clarification that certain messages on user talk pages can be deleted. You have one section saying that abusive messages can be removed by any user, and the next saying don't delete any comments. Obviously the meaning as-is is that they can't remove any comments not fitting in the above category, but some users could probably use clarifiaction. You'd hope it wasn't needed, but maybe there should also be something on what is and isn't abusive. Some users could try and abuse that loophole to remove anything they don't agree with.

There's also nothing on signing or {{unsigned}}. I think I saw someone told that there's no point putting {{unsigned}} on comments more than 6 months old. That's probably the kind of thing that could be made official. And you've got "an staff member" in the "What do I not use talk pages for?" section. Werdnae (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of "How do I use a talk page" how about "What should a talk page be used for". Also possibly remove the first person pronouns from the section headings. The tone in the sections is formal but the headings seem overly chatty and informal and do not strike the requisite note of awe, fear and promises of swift doom to all transgressors. However I am just nit-picking now, it looks good. My two cents, refunds available.--Beligaronia (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Needs moar of a section on talk page limits. You and I both know a certain user who abuses the talk pages by either adding some +2000 character talk page message per visit, or a three to five paragraph explaining what they did, when it can really be condensed into a single paragraph of like three sentences. To be honest, it's a little unnecessary. D:. --Psyライダー 11:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Limits are all very well, but there needs to be some leeway and wiggle room. Sometimes you do need to fully explain your point and justify each aspect of it, and it would seem that the wiki would suffer if people were afraid to explain their point for fear of being too long-winded and getting yelled at. That said they should always try to condense their view as much as possible without losing meaning. So in summary, strict limits are not good, guidelines and advice to simplify your point are good. My two cents, refunds available.--Beligaronia (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. No idea how I forgot the signature. Keep the responses coming. —darklordtrom 11:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Resigning posts (discussion from revamp s2)

Don't see anything about going back to edit talk pages just to sign them and having them give the wrong timestamp - all I see is instructions on using the {{unsigned}} template. It's even on the current article on the signature policy. Either I'm missing it or it shouldn't be there. Ztobor 04:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's how it should be. Thanks. —darklordtrom 11:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing comments

Is it also implied that users cannot edits their own comments, except for using <strike>, once they are placed? My example is here. --rockersk08 16:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Users should only ever be editing their comments to strike them out, correct a spelling mistake that they can't live with being there, as well as the standard other things (redlinks, etc.). Exceptions can be made of course if it is saved by accident. Generally though, users should be waiting for a response to a comment before they edit the talk page again, unless the error has changed the meaning of the comment greatly. It is extremely frustrating to type out a reply to a comment on your talk page, only to be edit conflicted because the page has been edited a dozen times to correct really minor stuff. Werdnae (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving user talk pages

Can the section from this old revision be put back into the page? It clarifies more on archiving user talk pages and why they are moved instead of copying text. Should it get put back in, can it also be noted that after being moved, the main talk page needs the redirect removed? --rockersk08 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. —darklordtrom 08:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Addition to Policy?

A couple of days a user posted a long copy and pasted message about a law targeting to remove youtube fan videos, walkthroughs, and fan art. The user wanted people to spread the message and put it on other talk pages. I said this was against the talk page policy because of Do not Have lengthy discussions not related to Bulbapedia. For this, use the Bulbagarden Forums' Private Message or Visitor Message functions. Although really it wasn't a discussion because the user was the only one posting things, but would it still fall under this? Maybe it should say: Do not Have lengthy discussions or posts not related to Bulbapedia. For this, use the Bulbagarden Forums' Private Message or Visitor Message functions. Or is this not needed? Sorry for the lenthy post, but I have been thinking about this. Thanks! --Pokemaster97 21:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a general point about not spamming. That should be a bit more broad. —darklordtrom 06:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Water cooler

The wikipedia link to water cooler should be removed (see here). Wildgoose-The friendly goose in town! 14:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? The link is there because it refers to the "Water cooler effect" as seen on the page it links to. Werdnae (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

6 Month Rule

"Please check the dates of a discussion before you reply to it. Unless there is good reason for revitalizing an old conversation, comments on sections older than six months old will be removed. This is because by this point the problems cited will have been cleared up."

I have often seen users removing comments older than 6 months. Sometimes, this is even when the discussion is still open and without an answer. I just think that maybe this rule should be re-written to explain that comments can be left on discussions over 6 months old if it is still open. Because making a new topic for exactly the same discussion is just pointless. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 20:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A doubt

Are we allowed to delete our own comments when we consider them inappropriate? TheOriginalOne 17:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If no-one has replied, yes. Ideally you are previewing and realise that your comment is inappropriate before you save the page. If someone has replied, please leave it for a staff member. Werdnae (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Cant find template

What is the welcome template? You know, the Welcome to Bulbapedia, (username)! thing? TeamPlasmaN1212 02:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It is located at Template:Welcome. --Abcboy (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

i. e.

Comment on the subject of the article (i.e. "I like Ash because he has a hat")

This sentence from the policy is wrong because i. e. means "that is". The letters you are looking for are e. g., which means "in example". Spyspotter 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to the forums in this section is formatted incorrectly.--Cold (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, it's been corrected. --Pokemaster97 19:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

New messages

Because new messages has to be on the bottom of each talk page, could someone add it to the policy or is it already there? --Cinday123 (Talk) 04:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Under "Editing in sections":
"Talk pages have their discussion topics ordered chronologically into sections. When you start a new topic, create it manually at the bottom of the page or use the (+) button to do this automatically. This helps keep everything in order. Please title your section appropriately so everyone can see at a glance what you are talking about."
Jo the Marten ಠ_ಠ 04:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
So depending on the time the message was posted? --Cinday123 (Talk) 04:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Policy Objection

My talk page is nowhere near long enough to be archived. Right now, my archive would have three conversations, and this is because I usually try to keep conversations together on a single talk page. I've done this at Wikipedia since something like 2008 (or earlier, would have to check when I joined there), and I do the same thing here.

That said, the welcome message on my page is two years old. I think it would be utterly ridiculous to have to create an archive for the simple purpose of removing it from my page because a Bulbapedia "policy" dictates I otherwise cannot remove it from my page. And, when I do create this archive, I have to then take up my "welcome" real estate with a link to the archive right there at the top instead of putting it somewhere more convenient.

The welcome template itself takes up an entire page. I've been here for two years (29 months to be exact). I don't need to see that on my talk page every time I go there. I don't WANT to see it every time I go there. However, because of Bulbapedia policy, the only option I have is to move my existing page of three conversations to an archive so I can be rid of it. I'm not deleting other conversations, only the welcome template. SO WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? I just want the template off my page so I can have my own welcome message to other users there instead. CycloneGU (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Who says it's not long enough to be archived? If it's just you, then you're the one you should be directing your own frustrations at... This page does not require a talk page be any particular size before it can be archived. And in her response to you, ArcToraphim explicitly suggested you archive your current talk page. If you really don't want to see the welcome message, just do that, then. It's that simple. Don't blame anyone but yourself if you don't want to do that.
This page also does not require that you link your archives at the top of your page. I believe I've seen some users linking them in sidebars. I'm sure you can manage something "convenient" if you want. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The reason I say it's "nowhere near long enough" is from a sensibility standpoint. But my point is why, more than two years after joining, it's required that the welcome message still be left on the page. That's the part that boggles me. After two years, if someone's still editing, they probably don't need the welcome template anymore. CycloneGU (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It pretty much says it on the page... It just seems to be a part of the "don't remove anything (valid)" policy. Your problem is demonstrably a solvable one, so it's not like this policy needs any rethinking just for that. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
To add on, as it states on the policy page itself, "This is for historical purposes and so Bulbapedia staff don't give repeated warnings about the same thing." Your welcome message gives the staff an accurate estimation of when you joined Bulbapedia, which may be taken into consideration if we'd ever needed to leave a message about something, or etc. While we can check the user creation log, this visual way is a lot less of a hassle. Also, it never hurts for even older users to refer back to the welcome message for easy access to useful links. --Pokemaster97 20:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
A reasonable response, Pokemaster. Even so, the argument regarding archived talk pages also would mean anyone viewing would have to click the archive, which is still - to use your word - a "hassle". I'd think by seeing that the first message on the page is from 2012 or 2013 would be an equal indicator that someone's been around a long time. Again, that's just me, though, and I'm doing other edits right now such that I'm not focused on my talk page. I just took offense to restoration of something I should, IMO, have the right to edit on my own talk page. Frankly, policy or not, my opinion will not waver; I still think older versions of a page are historical enough, and at Wikipedia I never had any issue with removing such a template because it's right there in the very first version of the page. We can even delete any messages we want (though I don't do that there either, just saying we can). That's why it boggles me why the template must remain here. CycloneGU (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

for the christians!

there are bad words in so many places! can you not allow them? cursing is wishing harm on someone or something. also, bad words scare me. please remove and ban bad words. --Valehd (tAlk) 03:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

What bad words do you speak of? CycloneGU (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
i don't accept any inappropriate words. i go to a catholic school. bad words such as the f word are used to wish harm one someone or something. whoever uses them uses God's name carelessly or "in vain".
The f word has no connection at all to God or his name. I went to a Catholic school as well and they told me that as well, but if you look up the actual definition of the word, it's basically either an act of - well - two people being VERY happy with each other, or "used alone or as a noun...in various phrases to express anger, annoyance, contempt, impatience, or surprise, or simply for emphasis". Nothing to do with God at all. That's just a Catholic school's way of keeping you from using foul language. Some words ARE the type that shouldn't be used, and I won't utter them here, but I do agree that no foul language should be used here at all, even if only to respect that some people don't like the use of them. CycloneGU (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a six month rule?

This policy makes sense for forums, but not talk pages. If someone has made a comment about a page, the comment remains relevant until the page is edited beyond recognition and visible in perpetuity. In forums, the rule about necroposting is due to the fact that newest posts are the most relevant and need to remain on the front page. On a talk page, there is no "front page" and new posts default to the bottom. On a site like this, questions may remain unanswered for several years until a sequel comes out. Sure, the original asker may be long gone, but unlike on a forum, when the answer finally comes, it will probably be notable for any new readers who come along. Hypershock (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons for the six month rule. Firstly, if an issued is already resolved, it doesn't need to be commented on further, especially over six months after it was resolved. If you have a further comment or question to make on the same topic, you should just make a new section and refer to the previous section via a link or the title of the section. The primary reason for this is that new posts default to the bottom. Because of the nature of this wiki and precedent set by the talk page policy, posts on the bottom of the page get noticed more because that is where the most recent, unanswered questions are. People don't really look at previous sections because the discussions in those sections are usually done and answered. Your question is much more likely to be answered if you just create a new section, instead of inserting your question in a previous section that is dated five years ago and buried by more recent posts. --Carmen (Talk | contribs) 15:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Well that's weird. People comment on issues which are unresolved, and then this unhelpful policy means that their contribution arbitrarily gets deleted due to the fact that the unresolved issue is six months old. Apparently, if the issue is not resolved in the first six months, it will never be resolved.
I would have thought that the fact that people post in old sections is evidence that people do read the rest of the talk page, and that old sections do get noticed. This policy is exists in spite of the evidence.
[[1]] Solar Dragon noted this problem 4 years ago, and it is still unresolved. But the policy means that if I posted up there agreeing that this policy hinders the improvement of Bulbapedia, my post will ironically get deleted because the problem with the six month rule has not been solved in the last six months.
  • "Because of the nature of this wiki" I showed in my first post that this is not the nature of this wiki, nor of any wiki.
  • "Because of the ... precedent set by the talk page policy" I'm saying this precedent is bad. Using the bad precedent to argue that nothing needs to change does not help anyone. The fact that people do post replies to old questions is evidence that they do read the rest of the talk page, not just the bottom. Hypershock (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The policy explicitly allows for replying to unresolved discussions. (This is still usually best interpreted as answering an unanswered/open question. Something like a 4-year old attempt to start a discussion is still better re-started.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we add a page for creating fakemon?

I think it would be a great idea if we could add a page purely for other users to create their own fakemon, e.g. I already have about 15 pokemon waiting for the public.--Roguentret (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Roguentret

No, this isn't a fanon wiki. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Talk page policy".