Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → 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This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to.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 finding that user talk pages are a lot more likely to receive a response than article talk pages (such as this). I'm personally guilty of this but so are others, as my post on that example page has not yet (at current time of writing) received a reply! I feel this is an important issue, as article talk pages are here for a reason: to be used! Could users please make more of an effort to check article talk pages, please? --Defiant 10:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm coming from Italian MA, and I want to support this complaint because I've few unanswered questions ([1], [2], and [3]). I'm sorry, but here I'm not so expert in english for good answering, while in MA/it I'll try to keep all questions with their replication, as soon as possible. May be some highlight somewhere (question of the day) could help? We do this in our external support forum, and it was revealed very efficacious. Your "sorry for bad english" Gifhtalk28.06.2009 23:14 (local time)
We have more than 30,000 articles - each one may have its own talk page, and in fact, many of those do. I don't think it is possible to "highlight" any of these discussions without this highlighting being very subjective (and, if it even works, without shadowing another discussion that is potentially active at the same time).
So, while it is theoretically a good idea to remind people of using talk pages, I don't see how this can realistically work without the initiator of a discussion taking care of "his" discussion in one way or another. Regarding the "summary length" request, for example, this is admittedly a very generic question. With dozens of contributors, there may be varying opinions about this, and additionally, it's not really clear what the reason for your request is: do you plan on rewriting the summary, do you want others to rewrite the summary, do you plan on suggesting the article for FA as-is? Lack of this information may prevent others from taking the time and looking at the article in the first place.
Regarding the other three - while I now answered #1, there may be better ways to deal with #2 and #3 than just a small comment on a talk page. If there's something wrong with article info, we have {{incite}}, {{pna}} and others - use them, if a simple comment doesn't help, and feel free to do something about it yourself. -- Cid Highwind 11:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for answering all of my question. Please consider that I can't handle too high with english language, and also I'm still in a learning phase of the wikis world, so forgive me for my lack in doing something by my self. Gifhtalk29.06.2009 13:34 (local time)

Cid, that particular article ("Babel One") is already an FA, so there wouldn't be a question of nominating it unless its FA status was removed, as per the relevant voting system. Since the standards of FAs seem to be in a gradual state of flux, I think it may be a good idea to have some sort of regular review process for each FA (for example, one year after each FA article has been given its FA status), or are users simply meant to assume that, if it's an FA article, it must meet the standards of the community by default (even years down the line!)? I don't think the FA removal process takes care of the minute details that can improve articles, as it is much more concerned with whether articles are drastically "bad"!
I also believe that the issue of there being "varying opinions" (as you mention) is a strength and a benefit, regarding talk pages as well as general communication about improving MA, and it's definitely part of the wiki way (as long as those opinions are expressed constructively). I wouldn't see a reason why a motive for my question would be required and I don't understand any confusion, concerning this, but I've nevertheless tried to flesh out my reasoning here. Hope that helps, somewhat! :-) --Defiant 08:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)