Forum:Discussion Pages Guidelines

As we grow as a wiki, users tend to become more and more social. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I personally believe we should adopt discussion page guidelines to help remind users the goal of the wiki here. It does get out of hand at times, and I believe adopting discussion page guidelines can only improve the wiki. Here is a draft that I came up with:

Talk pages on the Sonic News Network are used to discuss changes/improvements to the article in question. These pages should not be used to discuss one's personal opinion on the subject of the article. The same rules apply for all other talk page namespaces, with the exception of User talk pages, which has it's own unique set of rules.

Talk pages
Talk pages are used to discuss the article at hand, not the subject itself. Opinions on subjects can be given on blogs, forums, or the chat, but not talk pages. The following is a list of what should be done on a talk page. This list includes, but is not limited to the following:


 * Discuss major changes and/or improvements to the article.
 * Discuss edits that were made to an article.
 * Discuss whether two articles of similar subject should be merged.
 * Discuss changing the title of the article.
 * Discuss possible deletion of the page.
 * Create new headers for each new topic being discussed.
 * Other changes regarding the article at hand.

All Sonic News Network policies apply to talk pages. Talk pages also have an additional set of rules that are to be followed. The following is a list of what should not be done on a talk page. This list includes, but is not limited to the following:


 * Do not discuss the subject of the article itself, or your personal views on the subject.
 * Do not alter anyone's comment in any way, shape, or form, unless the comment does not comply with Sonic News Network policy.
 * Do not argue with other users about edits that you dislike, tell them nicely.
 * Do not misrepresent other people. This means do not assume what others had said or done, link to the diff of their edit, and provide quotes.
 * Do not lie. This will get you nowhere, and you may end up being punished for doing so.

User talk pages
User talk pages are used to discuss directly with another user. The Sonic News Network is not a social networking site, and user talk pages should mainly be about a user's edits, or anything involving the wiki itself. While general discussion is allowed on user talk pages, we kindly ask that if the discussion between two or more users gets excessively long, that it be brought elsewhere. This is because too much discussion on a user talk page can result in the disruption of the wiki. A good place to discuss personally with other users is the chat feature, which we encourage to use for all discussion.

Any revisions or additions can be made as necessary. -- 01:50, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Very well thought out. I have no arguments with implementing these guidelines. 03:10, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Per DF 03:24, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

Slap on the "Vote" section and I'll add my support. I, too, find talk page chatting to be annoying and I try to avoid it when I can.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 03:26, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with these guidelines. I support. Lloyd the Cat "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  03:34, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I guess I have no arguments towards opposing this, no proper arguments at that rate. I'll support. 10:38, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

These are basically the rules already, we just haven't codified them anywhere. I don't feel it's necessary to codify them, but I don't oppose the idea. I don't like the "do not" list, though, other than the personal comments one. The other "do not" rules fall under our existing policies anyway and give a very negative tone. Have any of these really been a problem? If not, it's a case of not stuffing beans up your nose. Also, for the "do" list, we should say that these are things that can be put on a talk page, but don't have to be put on a talk page (i.e. you can move a page without discussing it first, as long as you understand that other people might disagree if you haven't already formed a consensus). -- Supermorff (talk) 14:11, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I kind of feel this way as well. Feel free to add your revisions and fix anything you see fit. -- 23:14, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

No problems here. Although I'd like a little more specification of how long a discussion on a user talk page should get before it has to end. (P.S. Chat feature? What chat feature?) 16:12, September 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Might be high time to renable the chat, methinks? :P  Trak Nar  Ramble on 06:08, September 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably in a couple of days. -- 08:41, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

I support most of this, but can you change "excessively long" to "fairly long". It may be just me, but excessively seems like 25 edits in 10 mins or something. Also, can you be specific on it aswell? TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 22:51, September 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need to be specific, as we can easily decide for ourselves. -- 22:52, September 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. It's just that I hate users having to use their own judgement, because users can be bias, and i'm pretty sure everyone has some bias in them, but as long as it's reasonable, I guess i'm fine.
 * I still think you should change "excessively long" to "fairly long" though.
 * Also, is there going to be punishment if this happens, or well the user get a warning? I'm pretty sure you'll say they'll get a warning, but if punishment is involved the first time, then I think we need to be specific. TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 22:58, September 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * There really is no punishment for this. I'm not too sure what to make of what you said because it made absolutely zero sense to me. -- 22:59, September 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I said change "excessively long" to "fairly long", because excessively long would be if the users both had way to many edits in way to little time.
 * What I mean when I said we needed to be specific is that I usually hate it when users have to use their own judgement, because they can have differing opinions. Sometimes it can be unfair, as a user can be on the borderline of breaking the rules, and some admins may get them in trouble, some not, which is unfair to me. But if you really feel there's no need to, I guess i'll go with it. TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 23:06, September 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * "Excessive" does not mean, nor does it imply, several edits in a short amount of time. I don't know why you think it does.  Myself  123  23:08, September 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Dictionary.com's definition: "going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree". Excessively long sounded like "going beyond long", and long should be enough to me, but I guess i'll go with it for now. TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 23:12, September 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Excessively long means going beyond the usual/necessary/proper limit of length. Frequent editing is a separate matter (though frequent editing could lead to long discussions quite quickly). -- Supermorff (talk) 08:41, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I can more or less accept the talk page aspect. But the user talk section, I just have to say flat out huge NO. This is exactly the type of thing I was afraid of seeing ever show up on SNN. Sonic News Network is a wiki, and a wiki is fueled and maintained by its community. If people in that community want to talk with one another, there should be absolutely no problem with that. We have these user talk pages for the express purpose of users talking to each other, and so long as it doesn't violate trolling/flaming/explicit content, then what Users talk about to each other should not be an issue that needs to be monitored or restricted.

When I joined SNN, between my edits and activity would spend hours talking to Shelly via our talkpages (or just hers) about all sorts of things, as friends and fellow Users of this wiki. As a result she and I were both continually active, capable of observing the wiki and protecting it. If people want to have a one-on-one conversation without being flooded by other blog comments, that should be allowable. If people don't want to share personal information such as e-mail, phone numbers, or facebook accounts, that shouldn't be a problem. If people don't want to take their conversation to an entirely different wiki they may or may not be comfortable with, they should be able to feel comfortable talking to each other about whatever matter they feel on this wiki, between friends and fellow Users.

SNN used to be a much less strict and more fun place, without sacrificing its quality or content. Sonic News Network should not have to sacrifice conversations or interactions between Users on a one-to-one level for.... what purpose would this serve in the first place? User talk pages have never been a problem on this wiki in all the time I've been on here, so restricting them wouldn't do a single thing to directly improve the quality of this wiki in any way or form. If talk page conversations are proving a bit bothersome, Wikia already provides a way around that by removing user talk pages from Recent Changes. Sonic News Network has no reason whatsoever to become like the Kirby Wiki, where it's against the rules to even say hello to another User and talk about anything non-Kirby. Putting such restrictions where it's all business rather than the even mix SNN has always been able to maintain and profit from serves no true purpose.

TL;DR, here's my points:
 * User talk pages can be used for one-on-one friendly conversations over a variety of subjects.
 * Said conversations neither harm nor negatively impact the wiki in any way, shape, or form.
 * Restricting non-business conversations would only make it difficult for friends to talk to each other. As a person who made most of his friends through talking to them via talk pages, I can personally speak about how this could have a profound effect on people personally, and would only serve to weaken community bonds. Bonds which encourage people to stick around on this site and continue to contribute.
 * Restricting conversations to purely formal matters would do next to nothing to actually improve anything on the wiki.

If that needs further shortening, I'll put it this way: restricting talk pages is "meh" to me, more or less fine either way unless it impacts improving the article by preventing talk about its content. Restricting user talk pages is a big fat NO from me.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 07:44, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading the prior conversations I realize that my comment may be somewhat excessive in what it addresses and concerns, but I more or less stand by what I say.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 07:49, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll be honest here: I think I'll have to stand alongside Kagimizu. Just as he stated, I see no issues regarding talk pages, but User Talk pages being this restricted cuts out the social aspect of the wiki. While the chat is a liable source for keeping conversations, user talk pages were also originally meant for this purpose. In truth, SNN is meant to be both a wiki and a social networking site, just as it began. Besides, who's really going to care if we're a partially-socializing wiki? It's not as if there is a tyrant whipping our backsides to improve our standards, I rather appreciate the individuality of being a large, friendly wiki. In short, I'm opposing the change on user talk pages, though the change on standard talk pages, I can accept. 10:27, September 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I actually gotta agree with Kag on this one. User Talk pages were originally created for all-purpose communication between Users, and they've always been in use all across Wikia for years. Now that I think about it, if something were to happen to features like the Wiki chat, and the proposed User Talk page guidelines are implimented, it'll make conversation between Users needlessly limited. Unless someone can make some pretty strong counter-arguments, I'm going to change my vote to an opposing one for now. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  10:41, September 25, 2012 (UTC)