Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → Regarding what belongs on talk pages (replywatch)
This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to. Please visit the Forums to begin a new topic in the relevant location.

Hi. I'm a long time regular user but have never done any editing beyond correcting the odd typo or similar mistake.

A few days ago I was reading the Chakotay talk page when I noticed a user had idly wondered what people thought had become of Voyager's crew after returning to the Alpha Quadrant. So I chipped in my two cents.

My comment was removed, apparently because talk pages are to be used solely to discuss potential changes to the article. I wasn't aware of that, but it makes sense. No problem.

Neither the question I responded to nor any of the other comments posted in answer to it have been removed, though none of them discusses editing the article any more than my comment did. They are informal chat, simple responding to the questioner. Talk:Chakotay#After_Voyagers_Return

I reposted a slightly different response, thinking maybe it had been removed for being critical of the expanded universe fiction and not simple for being irrelevant -- after all, the preceeding comments don't pertain to editing. Removed again.

If my comment was removed because talk pages are not for idle chat, then why were the comments I was responding to not removed? The comment preceeding mine was, "Everyone lived happily ever after, except for Harry Kim. Libby dumped him. Poor, dumb Harry." Doesn't look much like he's discussing a potential edit. Neither does the question he's responding to, for that matter.

It seems to me that if these kinds of exchanges do not belong on talk pages -- and I can certainly see the wisdom for that policy -- then the entire exchange should be removed just as my comment was. I responded to an idle question, irrelevant to the article, just as several other users had. I'm a little confused as to why my comment alone was removed. 16:54, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

What you are seeing here is a change in the enforcement of the policy. The reason the presiding comments haven't been removed is because doing that everywhere is problematic, so everything before a certain date is considered "grandfathered in." - Archduk3 17:04, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Somehow I thought those comments were dated to june. Understood, thanks. 02:59, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

There is also quite a bit of a difference between a quick answering of a question (with a little bit of humor), which is what I did, and a somewhat longer opinion piece about how you don't approve of what the writers did. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:18, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

I had one short sentence critical of what the writers did, which I removed in my second post, and a short paragraph describing what I had always thought happened after Chakotay's return. Not that it matters -- I know now that talk pages aren't for chit chat, and I see no reason to argue about it. 04:45, July 1, 2011 (UTC)