Commons talk:Talk page guidelines

Top

Help:Talk page could potentially overlap quite a bit with this one. Just pointing that out... -- LeaMaimone 01:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now redirects to Commons:Namespaces. Rd232 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting ones talk page

Personally I have no problem with that. Just click on the link and go to the talk page, paste the message... you can sign with "commons:User:Fred_J" and five tildes. / Fred J 07:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That of course leaves you with the choice of disclosing your IP address or go through the registration and login process on the other site. It also makes it easy for others to pose as you.

However, a more important question is: how would you leave an {{Image source}}, {{Copyvionote}}, or {{Idw}} notice on a non-Commons site? Edit the template, copy the source code, paste it into the off-Commons talk page, and add all links to relevant Commons pages manually? Placing that burden, as well as the burden of identifying any previous Commons-related messages the user may have received mixed in with non-Commons-related messages, is simply not reasonable. Commons-related conversations belong on Commons. It's really that simple.

For people who can't be bothered checking their Commons talk page, the solution is simple: enable e-mail notifications. It takes exactly three (3) clicks and saves other Commons users the hassle of manually going to a site unrelated to Commons (possibly in a foreign language with a foreign character set and direction of writing), manually copying and customising a template, manually hacking a signature or registering an account, and somehow watching the non-Commons-related site for responses to the Commons-related message.

—LX (talk, contribs) 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

File talk

I would like to propose expanding this guideline with some information regarding File talk pages. During my activities patrolling anonymous edits I often notice anonymous users putting questions, information, statements, comments, suggestions, feedback, and god knows what else in other languages of which I am uncertain what exactly to do with it and if it should be kept on the file talk page.

It does feel like it doesn't belong there, but does it serve any purpose adding a heading, a signature and perhaps a response ? I've never had a single response to such talkpage messages since the anonymous user probably didn't expect an answer but just wanted to leave a note.

Though I couldn't find any good examples (I'll add later if I find some) - here are a few [1][2][3][4]. –Krinkle^talk 17:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Check for example the latest anonymous File-talk contributions. –Krinkle^talk 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you! That is a really good suggestion. In fact, 40-50% of talk-pages are useless. I guess, we should really think about a guideline. abf «Cabale!» 18:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the general guideline that out-of-scope stuff is deleted should do, but wouldn't it be more helpful to add an edit notice to file talk namespace explaining what it's for. -- User:Docu at 07:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, except maybe sample #4 by Krinkle, these talk page seem better than the usual stuff and IMHO what talk pages are for. -- User:Docu at 07:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

delete comments after they have responded

In the section Can_I_do_whatever_I_want_to_my_own_user_talk_page, it is said that Others delete comments after they have responded to them. Is this a good policy? If the messages are deleted, it is a long and tedious job to search for messages in the diff. Although English wiki does not disallow deleting the contents either (Wikipedia:User_talk_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings), there at least it is said that archiving is preferred. I think we should give preference to archiving here as well. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The observation (rather than recommendation) that some users delete comments after they have responded to them dates back to 2005. Today, it is the exception rather than the rule, and for good reason.

• Administrators and others use user talk pages (or their archives) as one part of the process of evaluating the credibility of source and authorship information when reviewing uploads. (Authorship claims from users with lots of warnings for copyright violations naturally need a more critical evaluation than those from a user with a spotless history.)
• Our deletion policy encourages administrators to check whether the uploader was notified of the deletion discussion, but it is unrealistic to expect them to dig through history diffs.
• The what links here? feature only works with current versions of pages (including archives but not historical diffs), so finding all old discussions relating to a file or other page becomes difficult if users blank discussions instead of archiving them.
• Hiding the talk page history may also mean that one receives messages or questions about the same issue several times, which can annoying for both the sender and the recipient.

—LX (talk, contribs) 15:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Since removing warning's from a user's talk page is not encouraged until the deletion discussion or deletion is finished, once the deletion request or warning is considered and responded, the user have the freedom to remove the warning notices from their talk page (after the discussion process), A log can tell the user's history of copyright violations rather than looking into diff's...current policy seems to be okay --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you if it is a deletion notice or warning, but user messages has to be treated differently. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That only addresses some of the problems that I mentioned. Furthermore, the current guidelines (not policy) only mention blanking after responding. Under the current guidelines, it's fine to respond "ok, noted" to a deletion notice and then blank it. (Of course, in practice, those in the habit of blanking talk pages usually don't respond at all.) There is no indication that deletion notices must be left in place for the duration of the deletion discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration?

"this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it does not exist here. Remove? NVO (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Blanking

I think we could use some binding words of wisdom on the subject. Palosirkka (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Pointy essay

The guideline page is a horrible pointy mess. Count me as support under AGF if you try some bold clean-up, i.e., remove at least 50% of this hogwash keeping whatever you identified as essential. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

BA-CC 4.0 Naoki

First of all I apologize for rude. The occasion is not on top of that they had bad intentions. Further says, but your from the block should be thankful about the means to cut off all contact. I have a basic knowledge of machine code and assembler in fact. Besides the wiki knowledge networks to hammer themselves once again. And get the current status. Your from, I might do has been educating me. However, I am human being was already editing the previous Wikipedia would still be 0/2000. Age 50, is past the Bachelor of engineering. So others know the process has made this system will spread the field once in a while, I better wear. Bossy words just what there is I think a flickering. I. Naoki--ナカネコ (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC) And I don't rename. I need name ナカネコ and administrator Naoki. You understand.. 名前の調査は止めてください。 これ以上の妨害は止めてください。 私も貴殿らのマニュアルには違うようにはすています。 こちらの希望がきけないのでしょうか。 Naoki --ナカネコ (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be better to write that in Japanese at Commons:井戸端. --AVRS (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Icon gold.png etc.

Yes, the files I've uploaded apparently doesn't meet requirements for a commons pictures. But if you've read the files' substantiation, you'd know that the license was just badly formed. Also, I think I should get one week to solve the licensing, not one day. I'm mentioning this because the community manager of that game wants the files uploaded and he's solving it right now. And you've deleted it. Last but not least, you've deleted pictures that were used in text without any warning that you're gonna do it so soon. That means I had to manually find missing words in the text and replace it. Carvin (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Commons:Talk page guidelines? How do you suggest the guidelines should be changed? —LX (talk, contribs) 05:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep the discussion readable

I didn't find anything about not removing comments made by other editors in this guideline. It may be elsewhere, but I thought this was a logical place to look. A search for "removing comments" finds that not removing comments is a behavior "which most editors agree with in principle and generally follow".[5] Consequently, I added the following:

• Keep the discussion readable: Do not edit or remove comments made by other people unless they are offensive, uncivil or otherwise violate the guidelines or policies of Commons. Otherwise, such edits are rude and make it difficult for others to follow discussions. When it is necessary to edit or remove comments, explain your reasoning in your edit summary. Often it is clearer to strike a comment, rather to change or delete it, especially if it is followed by a response. Use <s>struck through comment</s> to generate struck through comment.

I welcome comments and discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of comments, notices, and warnings by owners of User Talk page outlined in WP:Blanking project content guideline as follows:

"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed."

So although archiving is "prefrred" user still can choose to remove comments history from his own page. --Roo mate (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Added: This guidance applies to discussions other than on your own user talk page, but is good practice on your page, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Layout

Where this came from?

• Use indenting to keep the conversation straight: The first contributor is all the way to the left, the next person starts with one colon (:), the next person starts with two colons. Then, when the first contributor responds, they start at the left margin again, and the second and third persons continue to mark themselves with one and two colons respectively. In that way, who is saying what is clear. Other indentation systems are also widely used.

It is not quite clear what "other indentation systems" it means, but the preceding text completely contradicts w:WP:THREAD, which most people are actually using in wiki discussions (check the Village pump here, for example). And these "colons respectively" make not much sense either — "who is saying what" is already clear from their signatures, but who is replying to what is unintelligible in this system.

I'd suggest replacing it with what w:WP:THREAD says. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mikhail Ryazanov: The current wording has been there since the start. I agree with your suggestion. We could perhaps leave out the example, which takes up quite a lot of space and doesn't fit so well into the format here. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can replace the example with something like "(see WP:THREAD for an example)". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That Calinawan Caves form Tanay, Rizal is my original work since 2014

Yes i can say that photo is the original, and i owned this, the one that you sent me in blogger is the one that i used to shot when we took the scene on the same place in Tandang Pocho, Tanay Rizal near Calinawan Cave shot in my digicam in August 21, 2014. That blogger is my site and i know the Rules and Regulations that it is prohibited to upload and send your unoriginal shot or using that picture owned by the other.

Thanks and hoping that you will not delete my picture in your contest because it is my copyright and i took it in my own cam... Thanks Very Much...Edgar Ebro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edbon3000 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

My contribution

It is the school for drug users in the ministry of defence Thailand ,We have series of photo. What Should l do ? Old Captain 82 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, I've removed the part that said "When it is necessary to edit or remove comments, explain your reasoning in your edit summary." because it's never been necessary to edit or remove anyones comments. Sock comments are only struck and the only time we ever delete comments here are from vandals who write offensive content, put offensive images up or blank pages. –Davey2010^Talk 11:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed this as there is no consensus that establishes this as an appropriate guideline. --Fæ (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Fæ Please reread my comment - I haven't added anything. Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 09:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I got confused about page history, it can be quite hard to track back through a translated page. If I'm missing something or blanked something in the guideline inappropriately, please do highlight it in the thread below.

If there's enough interest we can always suggest a RFC for wider views. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Well at present there are 87 watchers some of whom are respected editors and admins and neither have reverted me so therefore I would therefore assume my edit is fine and thus no consensus would be needed. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Blanking "personal messages" without replying

Ref diff

There is no consensus or agreed case book for Wikimedia Commons that establishes that users should always avoid blanking unwanted messages from others on their own user talk page. In general, it's not treated as a hostile act to blank messages or notices from others in this way. It is presumed that if a user is blanking warnings, notices, or good faith advice, that they have read the messages before blanking them. As an example, when I have removed deletion request notices from my user talk pages, it is because there is no point in these particular notices being recorded in my archives; it's not a hostile act but one of housekeeping.

We need to take care that if someone is in the custom of doing this on their talk page, perhaps because they feel that excessive notices feel hostile to them, that this does not escalate unnecessarily to more warnings or threats of actions from sysops. Blanking without comment by itself should be presumed to be an act in good faith unless there is significant evidence otherwise. It is good practice to use edit comments when blanking to avoid confusion about why this is happening, but the absence of an edit comment, or an edit comment like "go away please", is not of itself hostile. This fits with the need for volunteers to work (often "quietly" on their own) in a "non-hostile environment" per COM:BP and may itself become part of later discussion about universal code of conduct implementation, should that arise. --Fæ (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• What Fae said^ - Some people interpret hostile in different ways and I guess when it comes to removing messages context matters (ie there could be templating between 2 editors at "war" with one another as well as different situations).

Anyway removing warnings and messages etc is absolutely fine as like Fae states by removing the message you understand what you did wrong and wont repeat it. No need for a badge of shame. –Davey2010^Talk 16:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Revising the talk page archiving guideline

Currently, COM:ARCHIVE provides less than clear guidance over whether archiving (as opposed to deleting) of talk page discussions is required. In one instance, it says the following, which appears to create a requirement against deleting talk page discussions:

Archive rather than delete: When a talk page's content has become extremely large or the discussion of the issue in hand has simply died down and no one has a reasonable chance of adding to it, create a new page and move the content there.

On the other hand, the page also has this to say, which appears to create a recommendation, not a requirement, for archiving:

Others delete comments after they have responded to them (but this practice is not recommended—archiving is preferred).

{{Dont remove warnings}}—a template advising users against deleting discussions on their talk page—has been nominated for deletion three times; the discussion has been closed as keep each time. Despite the consensus for keep, there was significant disagreement over the extent to which talk page archiving was required or recommended. This RfC is meant to clarify this ambiguity.

Discussion

• Soft recommendation: I believe that we should make a soft recommendation that archiving be used, but make no requirement against deletion. The recommendation should be "soft" in that users who delete content from their talk pages should not face the implication that what they are doing is wrong. Templates like {{Dont remove warnings}} should be strongly discouraged because they suggest the user has made a serious transgression and look similar to templates that often lead to blocks.  Mysterymanblue  08:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

   Oppose, I have never seen a user who is a net benefit to this project who also deletes, rather than archives, their user talk page. We don't sweep things under the rug here.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Jeff G.: Hi, Jeff, this is not a support/oppose thing. The request for comment does not set out a proposal; only my comment sets out a proposal. So if you oppose what I am personally suggesting, it is most appropriately placed as a reply to my comment. I have removed the !votes section and indented your comment. I'd also encourage you to make another top level comment that specifies what you would like the guideline to say.  Mysterymanblue  20:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Soft Recommendation: I believe that the template and guideline should remain as they are, the status quo.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Jeff G.: Hi Jeff, I'm wondering if you could clarify what sort of requirement you think the guideline currently creates. Or do you agree that it is ambiguous and want to keep it that way? Your use of "soft recommendation" seems to suggest that you think that it softly recommends, but does not require, the use of archiving. Do I have that right?  Mysterymanblue  22:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Mysterymanblue I struckout "Soft", which was a mistaken leftover from my copying of some of your post of 08:39 above. The guideline and template currently recommend archiving; the template actively discourages deletion of warnings.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Mass ping from deletion requests: @Slomox, Pieter Kuiper, ABF, Mike.lifeguard, Abigor, MrX, Denniss, Rd232, Herbythyme, LX, Avenue, Elvey, Motopark, Timeshifter, AFBorchert, Cirt, Cmadler, Yann, Rillke, Fastily, Ymnes, Elli, Eti15TrSf, A1Cafel, and Guido den Broeder: Apologies if I missed anyone.  Mysterymanblue  22:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I may mention that the last deletion discussion was closed as “keep” despite a vast majority of “delete” !votes by Jeff G., one of the only users supporting “keep.” On that note, oppose. Archiving should not be a requirement. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: I !voted exactly once at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Dont remove warnings.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  • That is not what I meant to say, and I apologize for that seeming insinuation. You did vote “keep,” which I meant to say. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with allowing people to remove content from their own talkpage provided it's not done in a misleading way. I remove stuff as it becomes no longer relevant and don't see how that's disruptive. Elli (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Elli: Talk page discussions belong to the history of the wiki. Talk page archives are searchable, page histories aren’t. Established users deleting notification templates is less of an issue (newbies deleting them may want to hide that many of their uploads are problematic, though); however, real, free-text conversations may be quite useful. For example “I’ve already discussed this tricky copyright situation with someone, but I don’t remember when and with whom”—if the talk page is archived, I can search for my user name and a phrase that likely occurred in the conversation; if the content was simply deleted, my only option is going through all my talk page edits one by one (especially if the section title contained the file name of the problematic image, which is totally irrelevant when looking it up). Deletion also makes linking to such discussions trickier (although possible), since only permalinks can be used, not normal internal page links. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is arguable that some users may remove warnings and results in a misleading way. But at the same time, someone removed warnings from their talkpage means that they have already read the warning. The warnings is still legitimate (if issued in a right way). When they continued with those problematic behavior, reporters at COM:AN can provide the link of issuing the warning to show the user has been notified before they are being reported. To sum up, {{Dont remove warnings}} should be discouraged as it seems to raise conflicts between users, participatory for those new comers. --A1Cafel (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  @A1Cafel Let's take, for example, a copyright violating user called A. A gets caught by B and B issues a {{Copyvionote}}, which includes bold "Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing." A deletes that note/warning and continues violating. C comes upon the situation and catches A again, doesn't see any previous note/warning, and issues another note/warning. C(2) through C(n) do the same thing, and A keeps deleting the notes/warnings. At this point, A is successfully avoiding escalation by deleting warnings. D comes upon the situation and catches A again, but decides to look into A's user talk page history and issue a {{File copyright status}}. A deletes that warning and continues violating. C(n+1) through C(m) keep going. At this point, A is again successfully avoiding escalation by deleting warnings. Some Admins think that D's action is a necessary part of escalation, even though Copyvionote has contained that warning since 1 February 2021. E comes upon the situation, but decides to look into A's user talk page history and issue a {{End of copyvios}}. A deletes that warning and continues violating. C(m+1) through C(k) keep going. F comes upon the situation, but decides to look into A's user talk page history and report A to COM:ANB or COM:ANU. Admin G sees the report, but declines it because not enough warnings were issued. H does the tedious research and points out the warnings. Admin I finally takes action. Without vigilant users like D-E and H, vigilant Admins like I, and strong recommendations not to delete warnings, all the C users and G Admins will keep getting fooled and A will keep getting away with violating copyright. The same goes for testing/vandalism with {{Test}}, {{Test2}}, {{Test3}}, {{Test4}}, and COM:ANV. Please don't be a C user or G Admin, look into offenders' user talk page histories.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's about time that Jeff G. gets to say "vigilant Admins like I" :) In all seriousness, this is a very extreme example of what could happen, but it seems unlikely to happen that often. The vast majority of discussions and even warnings (DRs, signature, VRTS, etc.) cannot be abusively removed. Realistically, if we want to prevent the abusive removal of warnings as you describe, we should just add "you may not abusively remove warnings from your page with the intent of avoiding accountability" to the guideline. Quite frankly, I have always been annoyed that we treat a user's talk page as some sort of "permanent record" of what they have done. The talk page should be about communicating with the user, and if we want to keep track of their "behavior" there should be some other way to do it. But that's totally beside the point. My main point is that I think it's absurd to lump all "deleters" together with that kind of abusive user and to punish them for it when they aren't doing any harm.  Mysterymanblue  11:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Mysterymanblue To be clear, "I" was the next letter in the alphabet. I would be a vigilant Admin here, as I am on other projects. When I act as user H, I mention the highest level warnings and the deletion of them. Should I include diffs of the deletions, or would that be overkill?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Jeff G.: I know, it was just a joke. As to your point: yes, it is a lot of work to go back into the page history and look for the warnings that a user has removed. At the same time, enforcing this proposed guideline requires you to essentially do the same thing. So I don't see how forbidding talk page deletion really solves that problem. I am willing to support the creation of a predefined list of warnings that you cannot remove from your talk page, but I see no point to force this rule on all talk page discussions.  Mysterymanblue  08:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Mysterymanblue: With even a small list of warnings that you cannot remove from your talk page like {{Copyvionote}}, {{File copyright status}}, {{End of copyvios}}, and the {{Test}} series, user D could immediately report to an administrative noticeboard, rather than waiting for user H.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Archiving one's talk page should be recommended. I mainly agree with Jeff: we don't put bad stuff under the carpet here. My talk page is being archived by a bot for the last 15 years without any issue, and I don't see why it should be otherwise. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Pages already have a history. There is no need for an archive let alone a rule which can and will be abused to annoy users that one doesn't like. The close of the template was (once again) incorrect. Note: I have been indefinitely blocked for over a decade on nl:Wikipedia because someone decided afer the fact that I should have archived my talk page on the last day of the month. Such rules will always be abused to remove the opposition. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• In my experience, disputes about talk page blanking cause more problems than they're worth. Warnings are archived in the history, we can always see them later if we need to. Sure, someone might get blocked a bit slower if they keep removing copyvio warnings, but we're not exactly quick to block for that in the first place, and it does get noticed. --AntiCompositeNumber talk 04:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment, my personal preference is that the WelcomeBot leaves an automated archiving template on user talk pages that archives after 365 (three-hundred-and-sixty-five) days or 180 (one-hundred-and-eighty) days, if users prefer they could remove this template from their talk pages. I just think that punishing for removing warnings is a bad idea, if someone uploads copyright violations they should be warned but lots of warnings can cause a stigma and I am against such a stigma culture (even though I'm not a fan of page blanking / section blanking). Having automated archives which users can remove is a better solution, punishing users for removing warnings will just drive away potentially good long-term contributors which is worse for the project and be a net negative outcome. Automated archiving would also solve oversized talk pages. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed about the auto-template, it can be a pain to get that or OneClickArchive set up the first time. As for copyvio warnings, overcat warnings, uncat warnings, and deletion notifications, if there was a standard parameter that could be passed to them to make them very compact, that could be a workable alternative to archiving since then even a lot of them could just make a single block on a page rather than sprawling all over. Arlo James Barnes 07:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    • @Arlo Barnes: We could use something like {{Collapse}} for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matr1x-101 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 December 2022‎ (UTC)
•  Comment Seeing that Commons:Talk page guidelines is a guideline and not a policy, I have always interpreted the wording "create a new page and move the content there" as instructions for best practice rather than a hard rule. That also makes it compatible with the second quoted passage ("Others delete comments ..."). Keep in mind that the first quoted section is from the general instructions for all talk pages. Most people in this discussion seem to have the opinion that archiving is better and and should be the recommended/default procedure, but straight out forbidding deletions goes too far. I agree with that. --El Grafo (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I've seen a highly active user remove an ignored talk page post of mine. It's okay if they don't reply and also if they archive it, but there should be a policy against removing rather than archiving any talk page entry that isn't very clear actual vandalism. I think a policy like the proposed one here is very needed, especially considering that other users may remove posts in far more problematic ways and far more often. That doesn't mean archiving is required, just that selective removal of infrequent nonvandalist talk page entries is mitigated – if this proposal is more about requiring archiving rather than not archiving posts, I'd oppose that.. --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)