Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Merge notices

A lot of talk pages are full of merge notices, such as Talk:Digital data. That could be an issue in making the talk page harder to read.

One page I'd like to ask about is Talk:Paul Kagame. Is there a need for two templates ({{Merged-from}} and {{Afd-merged-from}}) about the same merge? Melozone crissalis (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Suggested addition under “Temples” or regional Shiva worship traditions:

Suggested addition under “Temples” or regional Shiva worship traditions: “Kerala also has temples where Shiva is worshipped together with Dhanvantari, such as the Sree Rudhra Dhanwanthari Temple at Pulamanthole in Malappuram district.” Possible references: https://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/പുലാമന്തോൾ_ശ്രീ_രുദ്ര_ധന്വന്തരി_ക്ഷേത്രം https://templesofkerala.org/malappuram/srirudradhanvantharitemple.html Honourable hitman (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This should be posted on the article talk page, not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Reply tool

The page does not discuss the steps one should use to contribute via a Talk page. The best way is via the "Reply tool" and this should be highlighted in the content. Talk pages are regularly messed up by direct edits.

Any reason for this omission. Shall I change the page to implement this change? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

That's for Help:Talk pages, which is linked in the hatnote. Nardog (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

thx Johnjbarton (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Talk pages are regularly messed up by the reply tool as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I've not seen that happen. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Example - that <!--Template:Notified--> HTML comment should not have been divorced from the post to which it applies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I can reproduce this when:

1. A post is added via Reply and ends with a {{notify}} template. (Probably any HTML comment)
2. The next Reply is to the previous level of the thread.

The HTML comment is displaced but has no visible effect.

Perhaps this issue is more common on process-oriented Talk pages and anyway has no visible effect so this may be why I've not seen it. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Clarification about archived editing rules

In December 2024 an RfC here came to the conclusion that talk page archives can be edited to remove material that breaches policy, such as copyvio, libel, and serious personal attacks; to fix things like linter errors; and to substitute templates before deletion, and that they shouldn't be edited in a way that would change the substantive meaning of discussions or disrupt their context.

In February this year I opened a requested move for Learning Resources v. Trump, in which I mistakenly plainly wikilinked Category:United States Supreme Court cases in 2025, meaning that the talk page was added to that category, which it very obviously should not be.

A few days ago that requested move was archived and so my attention was brought back to it, which is when I realised this mistake. My question is, what qualifies as being to change the substantive meaning of discussions or disrupt their context in this situation? Obviously an edit to resolve the issue would be warranted under this consensus, but would correcting it fully so that the link appears be justified, or would it be an edit which disrupts the context (as something that reasonably speaking no one who responded actually saw), and instead the link should be entirely removed (to preserve the existing appearance of the request and preserve the context that its likely no one who replied actually saw the link)? Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This is such a minor issue I think you can do anything of what you just said and it'd be allowable. FaviFake (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Is WP:TPO an exhaustive list?

Two weeks ago, I made this change to WP:TPO which was reverted today:

−

==== Examples of appropriately editing others' comments ====

+

==== When you may edit others' comments ====Only make changes to other editors' comments or discussions in the cases listed below:

This list has grown immensely since it was created and it is no longer is a mere "list of examples". Just look at how carefully WP:HATGPT was written; that's not just an "example". It covers so many niche cases that, at this point, if something isn't allowed by this list, it's already disallowed.

I challenge anyone to find a reasonable reason for editing someone else's comment that isn't already covered by this list. If there isn't one, then we can confidently say that this list is exhaustive. I don't think it's necessary for me to explain why we shouldn't imply that something else is allowed when it actually isn't. FaviFake (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Nothing is ever an exhaustive list at Wikipedia. As usual, a flurry of recent can't-leave-it-alone changes mean that it's hard to know what has happened but for the record, "may be moved" is proper wikispeak rather than "editors are allowed to move them". Similarly, "Examples" is appropriate, not the absolutism of "Only make". I agree the list is long but that's how it is. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You challenged us to find a reason not on the list, but the list itself proves why the exhaustive-list approach is wrong. You pointed to WP:HATGPT ... However, a few years ago, nobody would have predicted we needed an item about LLM-generated comments. If the guideline had said "Only edit in these specific ways" back then, editors encountering the first wave of AI comments would have been violating the guideline until the specific addition to the list they need was drafted and accepted by consensus. HATGPT was practiced before it was added to the list as an example. Its addition is completely unnecessary, even.—Alalch E. 12:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Isn't the addition of HATGPT an example of how the list cannot be exhaustive? Technology changes, community expectations change, and even without those new niche cases can always emerge. CMD (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Agree with Johnuniq. Everything is situational and I’m sure the second we say the list is complete, we’ll find another example. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

WRAITHS (not games or films)

When I type in Wraith, I am wanting to learn more of modern wraiths but all I get is old fashioned and frightening answers as well as many games and films. I would,like to add my own experience with two wraiths who visited me this century ~2026-42632-80 (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for reports of personal experiences. See wp:You are not a reliable source. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)