FANDOM


Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → What is deletable from talk pages (replywatch)

I am more familiar with wikipedia where material on talk pages cannot be delated willy nilly but that has happened to me.

I have restored the deleted material (see Talk:The_City_on_the_Edge_of_Forever_(episode)) as I am not sure how the view of Nazi weaponry seen in the 1960 vs what we know now fits in the article; some articles have an apocrypha section an other do not and this is how I got information relevant to two other pages.

If material on talk pages cannot be deleted (except under extraordinary conditions) then you need to send a message to User:31dot regarding that fact. Oh having admin privileges doesn't mean they aren't being misused; one of admins at Rationalwiki had to 'turn in his badge and gun' due to misuse of his powers. --BruceGrubb (talk) 11:56, August 21, 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would address me directly instead of pretending I am not here and following the Recent Changes page. I removed one of your posts to that page because it responded to a twelve year old comment; such comments should be considered archived. Your other lengthy comment seems to be more of an essay giving a personal theory as to the episode based on historical information; if it was a proposal to add information to the article, fair enough, but it didn't seem that way to me. Talk pages are for discussing article changes only and if comments are not about that, then they can be removed, especially when a user ignores inquires about their comments as you did. 31dot (talk) 12:27, August 21, 2017 (UTC)

This 'reply to me directly' nonsense is a tactic the admin over at Rationalwiki tried and was one of the reasons he was forced to 'turn in his badge and gun'. The last thing people who may be abusing the system what is light shown on their activities, so what are you afraid of this matter being here, hmm?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:55, August 21, 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated, it wasn't clear to me that you were proposing an article change, and if you had replied to my posts on your talk page, you could have clarified that for me, or you could have politely asked me directly why I did what I did and clarified the matter. I have now posted a reply to your comment. I truly apologize for my confusion, but there was no intent for me to misuse or abuse anything; I was acting in good faith based on what I saw. I welcome reviews of my actions and am willing to correct errors I make when they are pointed out. In the future, please try that directly before seeking outside aid; this is a community where we should all work together. 31dot (talk) 12:58, August 21, 2017 (UTC)

Unless it is really egregious, material on talk pages should never be delated. Asking for clarifications (i.e. 'how does this relate to the article?' or 'are there any sources to back this up?') would better serve the talk pages. The replying to really old material vs making a new topic is a little sticky as we don't have the traffic Wikipedia does and making new topics to clarifying or correct a point made years ago makes for a very convoluted and fragmented talk page.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:57, August 21, 2017 (UTC)

It is egregious to load up article talk pages with irrelevant, general discussion(I stress that I now see your comment that prompted this discussion was not) and if other users see one irrelevant conversation it often encourages them to make their own. If someone makes a brief general discussion comment, I do sometimes post a warning, but the lengthier the comment, the less likely I am to do that. A discussion forum meant for general discussion is shortly going to be associated with Memory Alpha; it exists currently as I have pointed out. General discussion should be confined to there. Also, users generally do not wait twelve years for comments to their posts, which is why we generally consider such posts archived(even when not actually archived to an archive page). Both of these are longstanding practices here and for good reason. I am willing to discuss this with your further elsewhere so we don't load up Sulfur's page with comments(or his email box with notifications). I would suggest the Ten Forward forum, but feel free to suggest another appropriate forum. 31dot (talk) 14:13, August 21, 2017 (UTC)
First of all, let's make this more of a community discussion than an a tattle talk on sulfur's page.
Simply put, MA:NOT clearly states that:
  • Memory Alpha is not a discussion forum. We're not here to chat or to discuss ideas – we're simply here to write the encyclopedia...
MA:TALK makes it quite clear that talk pages are intended specifically for:
  • Comments about articles. Positive or negative feedback from readers is always welcome for any article!
  • Discussing the validity of an article. Sometimes, a reader or other contributor might have a question about the canonicity of a certain fact described in an article. The talk page can be used to iron out differences of opinion concerning the article's validity.
  • Discussing potential changes to an article. Often, it becomes necessary to rewrite an article. The talk page is a useful place to discuss what sort of changes are needed.
What is evident is that they are not here to compare and contrast "real world" information with the episode writers' version of history. Also, while there is no policy, per se about reverting talk page discussions that are off topic or do not fit into the above bullet points, but ultimately, like 31dot said, keeping our talk pages clear of topics that fall outside the scope of our talk page policy when the original contributor is not being mindful the talk page requirements in the first place.
I guess this is where the new discussions feature might be useful. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 21:38, August 21, 2017 (UTC)