Inkipedia talk:Policy/Talk pages

Not sure if the Mainspace articles' talk pages section is too restrictive -- "such and such weapon is too powerful" will often lead to tips on how to beat it or opinions on the reverse and enlightening the other editor why the game is actually balanced (or not). Completely off-topic discussion ("my cat's breath smells like cat food") I agree should be left out. User:Kjhf/Sig 18:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, though, that I don't see how it contributes to the content of the article, which is the main purpose of talk pages. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 23:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't per se, but the discussion from it can lead into tips into beating the weapon which can be incorporated into the article. User:Kjhf/Sig 23:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Perhaps we could expand it to allow discussion on the subject that will indirectly influence the article? Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 00:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how that would be enforced as anything could influence the article indirectly, so long as another editor was conscientious enough to get the discussion back on track. Perhaps a blanket "discussion related to the article" would be enough?

User:Kjhf/Sig 10:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to do that, as that's also too broad IMO. Maybe we should word it as "analysis of the subject that can be used in the article"? Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 15:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can get behind that :) User:Kjhf/Sig 16:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Bump. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 02:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"analysis of the subject that can be used in the article" seems like good wording to me; lenient enough to allow useful discussion without driving talk pages off-topic. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Bump again. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 15:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Could really use some input on these... Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 21:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Are we talking banning for violation of this policy multiple times? How long for (or is it severity dependent)? User:Kjhf/Sig 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, probably short (3 days to a week) bans after multiple warnings. Subsequent bans would be longer, of course. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 17:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

We've been sitting on this for months and no one's opposed, so I plan to pass the proposal this weekend if no one else has anything to say on this. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 21:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd oppose restricting the talk pages, but a forum namespace (or something similar) could be added to discuss casual things about the subject. 22:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Why? We've had problems with people simply complaining about things on article talk pages before; the goal is to eliminate that. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 00:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Bump. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 17:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for a bit of restriction on talk pages; general non-wiki discussion on the wiki distracts from article improvement and clogs the recent changes. I think the blog space is enough for general non-wiki discussion, in addition to Skype. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please let this be the last needed bump. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 21:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pursuing this (again). If not one else comments, I think we're set to go ahead and make the change with three users expressing support and one opposing. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing talk page content

This policy should be updated to specify if removing talk page content is allowed or not. Personally I think it is given the one removing is the owner of the talk page. We have the history of the page after all. The relevant Wikipedia policy is outlined here and here. User:Kjhf/Sig 14:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose removing talk page content, since it's easier for a new user who can't easily navigate page history to view precedent in an archive. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)