Fallout Wiki
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Proposed amendment to the current article TP policy

The following proposed amendment concerns a clause in the current user conduct policy at FW:UC, specifically the following:

Do not misuse talk pages: Talk pages are for the discussion of their respective articles and not for general chatter. Use the forum for the latter.

With the proposed amendment, the same clause will be revised to read as (with the addition in bold):

Do not misuse talk pages: Talk pages are for the discussion of their respective articles and not for general chatter. Use the forum for the latter. Posts that do not pertain to discussion of an article itself may be deleted regardless of their time of posting.

Namely, this would make the policy retroactive, allowing deletion of posts that were made before the addition of the policy (which was added by User:Porter21 at around September 2009).

Such a change would allow the clean-up of older posts. Previously, there was no guide available as to whether or not enforcement of the policy can be done retroactively (i.e. to posts made before the passing of the policy).

I would contend that such a change makes much logical sense, as keeping irrelevant chatter because they are old is detrimental and keeps improper content on TPs, setting a poor precedent for the future (i.e. FO4 article TPs), especially for those who do not understand the history of the article TP policy.

There was uncertainty as to whether or not the policy's enforcement was to be retroactive; policies are not retroactive because a user considers them to be. Thus, I am proposing we add the above-stated clause to the current article TP policy.

Please share thoughts below. I am hoping this can be a nice and quick process.

--Skire (talk) 19:07, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

It's good that there is a discussion to clarify this matter, but I would like to point out that no official channels need to be gone through to have that clause instated. This is how all of our policies have worked, since Nukapedia was first formed as The Vault. A perfect example would be our user TP policy, in which users may not blank their TP without certain conditions being met. And for those with content before the policy was set in stone, it was still breaking policy for those that removed it. ForGaroux.png Some Assembly Required! 19:10, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Consider this as more of a formality than anything else. And would administrators be justified in adding back user TP content that was removed before the passing of the user TP policy? --Skire (talk) 19:13, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
No. The policy dictates that those that remove content while the policy is active is against the rules. So any content removed before the policy went up would be exempt, as it doesn't fall under any policy criteria. ForGaroux.png Some Assembly Required! 19:15, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, so using the user TP policy as a parallel, I was hoping to change the article TP policy to be able to authorise the removal of posts made before the policy came into effect. It's kind of like the opposite: one forbids removal of certain posts and the other forbids posting of certain posts. --Skire (talk) 19:20, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
Well, no, there's a slight difference. The user TP policy only declared that content after the policy came into effect couldn't be removed without pre-existing conditions being met. The article TP policy simply declares that any content not related to improving the TP needs to be removed. The first is written that way because it'd be impossible to revert every removal made prior to the policy. The second is indeed enforceable, as one can check from article TP to article TP. ForGaroux.png Some Assembly Required! 19:23, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
It's only implicit though, since it doesn't explicitly permit removal of irrelevant posts as the user TP policy explicitly permits reversions of certain content removals. But like I said, I'm just trying to get it down in writing, especially for future concerns. When FO4 comes out I can only imagine how excited everyone will be to talk about their in-game exploits, achievements, recommendations, etc. Officially allowing the removal of all posts irrelevant to the article itself would set a nice precedent for the influx of new users. Formalities, formalities... Think of it as a pre-emptive, going-a-step-further-than-necessary action. I fully agree with the notion that we could've gotten away with it anyway =P --Skire (talk) 19:28, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
Definitely. I remember how hectic it'd get on the talk-pages just when DLC came out. ForGaroux.png Some Assembly Required! 19:30, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

I wish there was some way we could have two talk pages.. One for page improvements, and one for what people clearly want to use it for - topic discussion. Agent c (talk) 19:36, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Many wikis have article comments, but frankly I think it's rather unprofessional. As the policy states, the forums are always open for topic discussion, but they're not a total replacement... For the sake of organisation, it's probably best to limit TP discussion to the article itself and not its subject. --Skire (talk) 19:39, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'd vote yes for this. Enclavesymbol.jpg 19:37, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Roger that. Thanks for the support. --Skire (talk) 19:39, September 30, 2013 (UTC)
I'm ok with this. I would add behind "may be deleted" (with care). Something like that. I don't want people just delete an entire post when they see 1 sentence that doesn't match up. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 16:40, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Support, but I would suggest that we avoid creating any sort of project or go out of our way to purge existing talk pages. Yeah, delete old unneccessary posts as the pages bubble up, but I think we all have more important things to do than to scrutinise each page... If you want to do that, I think I can suggest groups of pages that need that more than this. Agent c (talk) 16:43, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Aye. We still have over 500 pages in the notable audio project. I'd much rather see some effort invested there... (Any takers?) Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 16:48, October 1, 2013 (UTC)
There will be no organised effort to purge TPs, but rather it'll be done as we go, and at individual editors' discretion. And J, we should be alright, since the wording does say only posts that "do not pertain to discussion of an article itself" qualify for deletion. Improper deletion of content is, as always, unacceptable. --Skire (talk) 22:44, October 1, 2013 (UTC)




Policy vote forum overview
GuidelineUser conduct guideline
Amendment 1Comment policy · Vote · 18 January 2011 · 4-3
Amendment 2Talk page blanking · discussion · Vote · 11 March 2012 · 16-4-1
Amendment 3Signature image size · Discussion · Vote · 24 January 2013 · 8-3-0
Amendment 4Multiple accounts · Discussion · Vote · 15 June 2013 · 8-2
Amendment 5Article talk pages · Discussion · Vote · 15 October 2013 · 8-2-1
Amendment 6Plagiarism enforcement · Vote · 27 August 2015 · 13-0-0
Amendment 7Mandatory edit summaries · Vote · 8 October 2021 · 18-10-2
Amendment 8Editing user and talk pages · Discussion · Vote · 8 April 2022 · 11-0-0
Amendment 9Multiple accounts and block carryover · Discussion · Vote · 8 April 2022 · 11-0-0
Related topicsAdministration policy
Advertisement