86,550
edits
User talk:Daniel Carrero: Difference between revisions
→Talk page policy
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:::This is a common misconception. If you read the {{bp|Talk page policy}}, the rule is specifically "''Unless an old conversation is still relevant and there is a good reason to revitalize discussion, comments on sections older than six months old should not be made.''" | :::This is a common misconception. If you read the {{bp|Talk page policy}}, the rule is specifically "''Unless an old conversation is still relevant and there is a good reason to revitalize discussion, comments on sections older than six months old should not be made.''" | ||
:::Six months is merely a guideline for determining when a conversation is finished. However, if there's a discussion about moving/merging/etc. a page, and the notice template is still up, then the conversation is necessarily still active. In such a case, you should be using the existing section, in order to keep the discussion in one place. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 02:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC) | :::Six months is merely a guideline for determining when a conversation is finished. However, if there's a discussion about moving/merging/etc. a page, and the notice template is still up, then the conversation is necessarily still active. In such a case, you should be using the existing section, in order to keep the discussion in one place. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 02:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC) | ||
::::I'm confused, then. If someone posts a new comment meant to continue an old discussion, doesn't that mean the conversation is still active? If so, that rule sounds pretty redundant. [[User:GrammarFreak01|GrammarFreak01]] ([[User talk:GrammarFreak01|talk]]) 06:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC) | |||