Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Question

{{re|Moxy}}, I'm confused by your edit that added "blank" here: {{talk quote block|Never blank, edit, or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.}} Blanking can't change a comment's meaning, and editors are permitted to blank (remove) comments on their own talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:Removing someone reply would be the worst example of mocking about with someones comments. This should be clear to all. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_Einstein&diff=prev&oldid=1276388007 eg]. Trying to change the look of how a talk evolves is very grievous.Moxy🍁 16:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that there should be wording to explicitly prohibit removing others' comments on talk pages (except the user's own talk page and except in the cases listed in the exceptions subsection). I don't agree with adding "blank" to that sentence. Schazjmd (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::What do you propose? link like we do with WP:3RRNO. Say ..."With the exception of user talk pages removing others' comments is prohibit if they do not violate scenarios outlined above." Moxy🍁 17:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for making it a separate sentence; I've tweaked the wording. I'm not sure that it currently captures all of the exceptions though. Schazjmd (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::FWIW, the present verbiage apparently technically proscribes the fairly ubiquitous practice of quietly removing drive-by comments by anonymous editors that aren't clearly WP:NOTFORUM but are clearly merely clutter. Remsense ‥ 论 12:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The section currently states, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Removing others' comments is prohibited, except on one's own user talk page." These two statements seem to contradict each other, the only distinction being the first refers to editing or moving and the second refers to removing. Wouldn't removing a comment be considered an edit? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:If it's on your own talk page, you can choose to remove it. —Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:I consider user talk pages to be the wiki equivalent of voice mail on a phone.

:On my own phone, I am free to delete messages I no longer need.

:I would never delete or amend the messages on someone else’s phone (without permission). Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Editing someone else's comment changes its meaning. Removing it does not do this. CMD (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to change other editor's comments from URLS to WL formatting? For instance, is changing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About to Wikipedia:About acceptable? Same for diffs. A lot of the time I see links like this, and clicking on the links sends me to the mobile view (m.en.wikipedia) when it's just an on-wiki link easily expressable in WL formatting. Departure– (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Unless you have personal experience with the editor in question that leads you to believe they wouldn't mind, it may be better to provide the alternate link in a separate comment. isaacl (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The request for comment at {{slink|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 199#LLM/chatbot comments in discussions}}, closed in January, showed consensus that {{xt|"it is within admins' and closers' discretion to discount, strike, or collapse obvious use of generative LLMs or similar AI technologies"}}. This should be reflected in the talk page guidelines, because the described situation is becoming quite common and it is inconvenient to locate an archived village pump RfC every time this consensus needs to be referenced elsewhere.

I propose adding the following bullet point into {{slink|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Examples of appropriately editing others' comments}}:

{{tq2|

• LLM-generated comments: Comments that are obviously generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar AI technology may be struck or collapsed by administrators and discussion closers.

}}

— Newslinger talk 19:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC) {{small|Edited 05:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)}}

:I support this addition, and I would actually take it further, by omitting "by administrators and discussion closers". I think anyone should be able to do that, and given that the need to do it is going to grow dramatically, I think all hands are needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. JoelleJay (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Given other examples in WP:COLLAPSENO are not limited to admins, this seems in line with practice. CMD (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for bringing up this point. I agree that the limitation is unnecessary and I've struck it from the proposed text. — Newslinger talk 05:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{done}}. Thanks for suggesting this. I've added it to the page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATalk_page_guidelines&diff=1292037860&oldid=1289140234], with WP:AITALK as a shortcut. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::In recognition of {{u|Folly Mox}}'s suggestion in the village pump RfC, I've also added the WP:HATGPT shortcut in Special:Diff/1292040840. — Newslinger talk 21:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=1294658041 changed the wording] (but not the meaning) of the guideline yesterday to reduce the number of times that the guideline talks about "deletion" of comments when it means "editing" or "removing" or "blanking", instead of WP:Deletion. I find that avoiding the word deletion is clearer, because "removing" contents is less likely to be confused with "find an admin to press the deletion button".

@Peter Gulutzan thinks that this language is not an improvement (nor, I think, does he believe it to make things worse?) and therefore worth reverting, because changes should only happen if they are material improvements, and not if they are neutral changes. What do other people think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:For me, this is definitely a case of "meh". But I think he has a point, in that there is a plain dictionary meaning of the word, and we aren't confusing anyone into thinking that we are referring to the in-house term of art about page or file deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::I will chime in, I agree with the position that if an edit does not constitute an improvement, it should be reverted. The alternative actually leads to a nonsensical situation justifying the change to constantly be reverted even though the two editors actually agree and are merely exercising their personal preference. Perhaps a bit more relevant is the idea that the improvement should not be totally based on whim. No doubt, this won't keep people from changing something just because of their personal preference for a particular wording, but it's an effort to set some sort of level of improvement beyond de minimis. Fabrickator (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary disagrees with you. Given a choice between two equally good versions, there's no need to revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm glad that's only an essay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::There isn't even an essay for the opposite view. What would you even call it? Wikipedia:Please revert all copyediting except when you personally agree that it is a clear improvement? The concept of a wiki (which means "quick"), and of the WP:Be bold principle, is rooted in the idea that making changes, even if they're not "necessary", is ultimately desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that "deletion" is the most common English word for it. I don't think that the other specialized wiki technical meaningS WP:Deletion, Wikipedia:Revision deletion will make them read it otherwise. BTW "blanking" also has a common different Wikipedia meaning. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:WhatamIdoing is correct that I do not call the changes "worse", and I cannot think of a decisive PAG reference saying non-improvement is forbidden (WP:EDITING contains words "improve" + "improving" + "improvements" re articles not PAGs). But I don't back off from what I said in my edit summary: The word "delete" is okay, changing a guideline in multiple places, just because there's a deletion policy about something else, is changing without improving. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::What's wrong with "changing without improving"?

::More to the point, what's wrong with a change that I believe is a clear improvement, and nobody believes is harmful? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Peter, I think you should look at WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, especially these two:

:::* "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording"

:::* "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental."

:::From where I'm sitting, there's not much daylight between what you're doing and what that policy discourages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::In reality the sentence is: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently." Your accusation would be less worthless if I was doing it in a particular article frequently, and if when quoting you didn't omit what doesn't fit your purpose, and if you hadn't edited the guideline far far more often than I have. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Did you, or did you not, revert a minor change to wording simply because you found it "unnecessary", without claiming that the change is detrimental? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not engaging further with you in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::I actually think this IS an improvement. We “edit” or “change” article text - and that sometimes means “omitting” or “removing” information. We are not “deleting” when we do that. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that using a term like "delete a comment" or "delete a post" isn't readily confused with deleting a page, and so there isn't a need to try to avoid confusion that the Wikipedia:Deletion policy applies. Looking at the specific changes, there are three types:

• Replacing "delete" with "remove":{{unordered list

|{{tq|The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or deleteremove others' posts without their permission.}}

|{{tq|DeleteRemove. It is common to simply deleterevert or blank gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material...}}

|{{tq|Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or deleteremove your comment...}}

|{{tq|Inserting text without deletingremoving any text is ambiguous, ... This problem can be avoided by deletingremoving one word and then re-inserting it...}}

|{{tq|...unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deletingremoving it from the archive.}}

|{{tq|...Some new users believe they can hide critical comments by deletingremoving them}}

}} For these specific examples, personally I feel the two words are equivalent.

• Replacing "delete" with "revert":
• {{tq|DeleteRemove. It is common to simply deleterevert or blank gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material...}}: personally I think "delete" and "revert" are substantially equivalent in the context of the second sentence
• Replacing "delete" with "blank":{{unordered list

|{{tq|Restoration: to restore comments vandalized or accidentally edited or deletedblanked by others.}}:

|{{tq|DeleteRemove. It is common to simply deleterevert or blank gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material...}}

|{{tq|This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions ofblanking simple invective areis controversial. }}

}} Personally I think "blanked" is a jargon term, so I lean towards using "deleted".

So while I personally wouldn't bother replacing "delete" with "remove", I don't have any strong objection to it. I have a mild preference to use "delete" instead of "revert" in the specific example, as it's the deletion of the content that matters, not whether or not it's removed through an exact revert, but I don't think it matters that much. I personally wouldn't favour "blank"; it has specific connotations about what is left behind and is a jargon term. isaacl (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's been five days, and it looks like nobody thinks the edit was "detrimental", to use the word in the Wikipedia:Ownership of content policy. I plan to reinstate this unless someone genuinely believes that it made the page worse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:: What is the difference between removing and blanking? If there is no substantive difference, it is confusing to use both words. I suggest "removing" in all cases. (Also this use of "blank" as a verb is grammatically dubious and some dictionaries don't even have it.) Zero^talk 07:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The difference is one of scale… we “remove” a small bit of text (a factoid, phrase or sentence). We “blank” an entire section (or several sections). We “Delete” an entire article or topic.

:::Also - “removal” and “blanking” are not necessarily permanent. We can “remove” uncited information that requires a citation, but that information might be returned once a citation is provided. We also might “remove” information from one article because it is better placed in a different article.

:::We can “blank” a poorly written and confusing section, in preparation for a complete rewrite (which may or may not contain all of the information previously contained in the section).

:::“Deletion” on the other hand is usually more permanent, and procedural. It is rare for an article that is deleted to be resurrected.Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I would avoid "blank" and its conjugations. To me, "blank" implies completely removing something (making it blank), which I would read as removing entire articles rather than small sentences or sections. CMD (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::But unlike “delete”, which is permanent, I see “blank” as a temporary state (like a “blank” canvas, waiting to be painted upon.) Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I feel with "blank" there is a connotation that white space is left behind (that is, a blank space). For example, blanking an article is used when the article needs to be rewritten due to copyright violations. It isn't deleted, because the topic continues to meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. There could also be, in some cases, an explicit reference to the deleted content left behind. isaacl (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::I described specific cases where I think the changes were worse than what was there previously. isaacl (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You have mildly objected to the word blank (which is fine with me; we can use remove throughout) but not to the general concept of replacing the word delete when it's not referring to page deletion: {{xt|there isn't a need....while I personally wouldn't bother replacing "delete" with "remove", I don't have any strong objection to it}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::No, I mildly objected to the specific instance where "delete" was replaced by "revert". I objected to the use of "blank". You responded to my post where I detailed the specific instances to which I objected by saying no one thought your edit was detrimental and that you would reinstate it. It feels to me like you're not interested in considering objections to any portion of your edit. isaacl (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I did in fact object to the general concept of replacing the word "delete" just because it isn't referring to page deletion. But I also examined the specific changes and, in those contexts, I felt using "remove" was equivalent. isaacl (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Perhaps nobody may have made the case that it was detrimental (although Isaacl clearly refutes that), but we are far from a consensus that it is an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::An agreement that it is an improvement isn't technically necessary per the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR policy. We only need to agree that a change doesn't make it worse ("detrimental"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That's when there hasn't really been any objections raised. The overall thrust of the discussion in this thread is that there has been pushback against the edit. My sincere advice is that this isn't worth fighting for. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Given that I have given (admittedly mild) “push for” - and stated why I think it is an improvement… I would like to see one of those who are “pushing back” to state more clearly why they think it ''isn’t’’ an improvement. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::About half the editors in this discussion dislike using the word blank, which I used three times. (Before my edit, it was already on the page twice in this sense: "discussions should be archived, not blanked" and "a courtesy blanking may be requested".)

::::::Nobody has said that they believe that this change:

::::::* The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. →

::::::* The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or remove others' posts without their permission.

::::::makes anything worse. A few editors have said that it doesn't seem necessary. I can even agree with this; I don't think it is strictly necessary. I just think it is an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I began my comments about this by saying "meh", and this really does not strike me as significant enough to argue at length. If WAID feels this strongly about it, I'll just leave my position as "meh", and if other editors feel more strongly, then they can make their case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Changing my opinion - I JUST realized that we have been discussing deletions/removals/blanking on article TALK pages, and not in articles themselves. I apologize. This changes my opinion. Please disregard my previous comments.

:I do NOT think a change in wording is necessary in this context, because we rarely remove/blank/delete comments on talk pages without cause… and when there IS cause, a “removed” comment does NOT have the expectation of ever being restored. Ie removal in this context is equivalent to deletion (indeed sometimes it is even deleted from the page history). Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::The only exception to this is on USER talk pages… but those are discussed in a different section of policy and I would not change that either. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That's fine, @Blueboar, but the question isn't whether "a change in wording is necessary". The question is whether a change in wording is actually "detrimental" to this guideline.

:::We currently say that it's bad to "edit or delete others' posts". Do you believe it would be worse to say instead that it's bad to "edit or remove others' posts", or just that it's no big deal so why bother? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::A lot depends on what we are actually talking about. I think the word “delete” is appropriate if we are talking about what we would do to a comment that constitutes a personal attack on another editor. But if we are talking about a gibberish test edit… I would use “remove”. Both words have their place depending on context. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:: I disagree that "delete" has the connotation of forbidding restoration if a tool is not actually used. WP:Revision deletion and WP:Oversight can be referred to by name when they are needed. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, but when a admin tool IS used… “delete” is the more appropriate word. My point is that there are situations where we should say “delete”, and situations where “remove” (or even “blank”) is more appropriate. If we need to clarify this, fine… but “delete” should stay in the mix. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• I support replacing the proposed instances of "delete" with "remove" and iterating from there if desired. I believe that using them interchangeably contributes to editors being imprecise in contexts where the distinction does matter. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Giraffedata: In WP:OWNBEHAVIOR you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content&diff=next&oldid=626361414 added]: "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version." Do you have any opinion about the use of your wording in this discussion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. To the extent that "remove" is as good as "delete", the change of "delete" to "remove" (etc.) should not be reverted. In particular, an editor who believes that "remove" and "delete" are equally good should not change "remove" to "delete" (the fact that it used to be "delete" notwithstanding).

:This is not only an opinion I strongly hold, but I think one that is fairly pervasive in Wikipedia. I won't offer any arguments here, because there are essays that talk about this at length.

:OTOH, some of the discussion above is actually about whether the change is detrimental to the page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Where do I find the Talk page/debate that led to the change from Wikipedia being the media outlet that 'anyone can edit' to the 'Free encyclopedia'? 2A00:23C6:27AC:BD01:F883:156:E3EE:85D1 (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:This isn't the place to ask. You can ask at WP:Teahouse. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:The Main Page still says "Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"

:The MediaWiki:Tagline was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=prev&oldid=361453136 shortened] in 2010. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 62#Improve the WP tagline was one of multiple conversations about this at the time. I don't remember seeing any serious challenges to the shorter version since the inevitable immediate backlash, and now people are used to it, so I doubt that it will get reverted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Archives#I think I've got it (should the compact tooltip version be the default for banner mode?) and Template talk:Talk header#Deduplication (slight stylistic changes in making Talk Header use the Archives template instead). Aaron Liu (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)