Forum:Stricter talk page guidelines

I'd like to propose the following changes:

1. Add a new point to "General" as follows: "Talk pages are not social media, chats, or instant messaging. Only write one message at a time and only if it adds to the conversations.
2. Remove the current point 6 language about user page exemptions ("Unless the user is blocked, user talk pages are exempt from rules 1 and 2, though not following them is discouraged.")

I believe the current user-space talk page usage has become way too chaotic and the wiki is not social media. We provide both Discord and Zulip as an appropriate method of instant/chat communication. Spammy user talk pages is a massive burden on admins and patrollers to keep up with that would be better spent improving the contents of the wiki. | violine1101 ^(talk) 19:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC) (Last edited on 19:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC))

👁 Image
 Support per violine1101. 👁 Image
Sightnado ^{t | c} 19:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

After further consideration, I 👁 Image
 Oppose the removal of the exemption of user talk pages from rule 1, as that would make them largely useless. Still 👁 Image
 Support the remainder of the proposal. 👁 Image
Sightnado ^{t | c} 20:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I 👁 Image
 Support these guidelines, so long as they aren't used to prohibit every single bit of chatter on the wiki whatsoever regardless of whether or not it's disruptive. If and only if chatting becomes disruptive, it should be restricted. But when it becomes disruptive is when it should be restricted. Again, I support these changes; I am not against restricting disruptive chatter. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  19:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. Also add a rule regarding signature forgery. It's used to impersonate other editors to accuse them of certain acts and ping them accidentally. 👁 Image
Quake the Wind Fan 👁 Image
19:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support there has been like 3 copperfan impersonators. 👁 Image
72011copperfan2👁 Image
20:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This is something so obvious that its addition would just clog up rules in my opinion, we already indef anyone who does signature forgery because it is only trolls who do it. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
23:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I 👁 Image
 support the implementation of this guideline. More and more unencyclopedic users are starting to misuse the wiki, without any consequences, and this would have to be discussed sooner or later. RedX (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Weak support, I don't know how rule 1 could ever apply to a user talk page, that would mean you could only discuss the content of the userpage? User talk pages are meant to talk with a user when it's not about a specific wiki page but about the user themselves (their edits, behavior, or related). I also want to point that while I agree with this, users with solely disruptive chatty behavior should first be warned, and blocked if it continues too long. I agree with NG2K, constructive users should be able to have a chat now and then if it's not disruptive. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
19:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I 👁 Image
 Support this proposal. There is an increasing amount of users who use the wiki solely as a means to chat with other users instead of helping to build an encyclopaedia. This change in the guidelines would help reduce this kind of disruptive editing. If users want to chat, that's what Discord and Zulip is for.

I do believe that a small-to-moderate amount of casual chatting among constructive wiki editors is acceptable, though, as it doesn't really cause any harm. It is excessive casual chatting that is a problem, though, and that is what should be prohibited by the talk page guidelines. – Mitsos ^{[ talk ]} 19:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

What about the people who cannot go onto discord/Zulip?(like me and a few other users) 👁 Image
72011copperfan2👁 Image
20:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

That is a problem that you have to solve on your own; rules and guidelines do not make exceptions for certain users. 👁 Image
Sightnado ^{t | c} 20:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

🙄 👁 Image
72011copperfan2👁 Image
20:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is just how it is. It is not our fault that you are not able to access Discord or Zulip. – Mitsos ^{[ talk ]} 20:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. –LauraFi - talk 20:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Weak supportI agree, but like NG2K said, it should not completely remove all chatter. It should only remove disruptive chats and stop users who solely want to chat, and do not want to contribute. 👁 Image
72011copperfan2👁 Image
20:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Partial oppose on suggestion 1. It's good to let people know that "Talk pages are not social media..." but limiting users to 1 message and then forcing them to wait for someone else to say anything is ridiculous and absurd. 👁 Image
 Strong oppose on suggestion 2. Why would user talk pages have to be only about that user's... user page? That would mean that every user warning, every discussion about a user's edits, and any sort of compliment, award, or Wiki discussion would be invalid. The rules for a user's talk page, obviously beyond the Wiki Rules, should clearly be up to that user. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support 👁 Image
72011copperfan2👁 Image
20:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment -- I don't think "one message at a time" means "until someone else replies", I think it means just not two within a few minutes of each other. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  20:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a time, though, when it is needed to comment on your own message, like when you correct a mistake on the first one. 👁 Image
72011copperfan2👁 Image
20:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

If you make a mistake, just edit the message. Talk page messages can be edited after all. And, like I said, commenting on your own message isn't completely disallowed; you should just wait some time. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  20:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, a minor edit to a message can be done (I did it for my reply) but a major addition to a message, like if I were to ramble on about how this proposal is somehow the Doorman fallacy, would basically go unnoticed if not in another message. Like an update or an addendum. Just blanket-banning making multiple messages quickly by assuming it's all malicious is just creating more problems. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and as a follow-up to mention a separate point, something that also should remain OK, if what you said in your comment needs to be clarified, it should be clarified within the guideline itself, otherwise it looks like a strong arbitrary restriction. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it's rather clear that violine means messages should only be related to the user and their actions on the wiki, instead of what happens now: chatting casually with the user. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
23:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support first point as chatting really spams notifications and also pretty everyone else.

👁 Image
 Oppose second point as some can't access Zulip/Discord and also what is the point is only discussing the user's userpage? ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Why should the wiki function as a social media for people who cannot access real social media? - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
23:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

IMO it shouldn't function as a social media - userspace should function as a replacement for the MCW Zulip/Discord for people that don't have access to it. There are valid reasons why one wouldn't have access to the server, and its function is very important for the wiki. It helps building/growing in the community (remember, we're more than just wiki editors), and can encourage constructive editing. But this should be mainly done by constructive members of the community and it shouldn't result in disruptive userspace only editors. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
23:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I am getting a little off-topic here though; remember that we're discussing talk page guidelines here about the problem of spam chat behavior, not excessive userspace editors. Even with this proposal which I support, we should use common sense and a minor chat now and then can't be a problem. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
23:35, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support 👁 Image
72011copperfan2👁 Image
23:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is very much about people who are primarily here to chat in userspace as well, it is relevant. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
21:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the tangible effect we're feeling is getting users who are only here to talk in userspace, that care far too much about their userspace, and are editfarming because of that. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
21:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The Wiki obviously doesn't function as a social media, but that doesn't mean that people can't create a community within it. Part of what makes a community that is being able to talk with one another. People who can't access Discord for whatever reason shouldn't be excluded from the community because of that. Allowing people to informally communicate with each other on their own talk pages if they choose to allow it doesn't turn the wiki into a social media. There is no like or share button, people don't make "posts" in order to get clout, so there's really no risk of becoming a social media at all. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support 👁 Image
72011copperfan2👁 Image
23:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you think discord isn't a social media platform? It indeed is, and the wiki is being used as a replacement for discord. The wiki is being used as a social media by multiple users. But even if I were wrong in this semantics argument, what's actually happening doesn't change. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
21:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Everything is, to that extent, a "social media". And I don't mean some snarky "your definition is wrong", I mean that every internet collaboration is going to want to become a community as people want to become familiar with the people they're collaborating with. And trying to stop that by isolate people into their own concealed working boxes while waving canes and yelling "social media" just because they can't access some limited external service just seems all-around bad. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
23:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support 👁 Image
QwertyLilley ^[talk] 23:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support first point, 👁 Image
 Oppose second point. The probrem we are trying to solve are spamy chats and that would be restricted by the first point. Removing user page exemptions is unnecessary strict. - Ssysi - talk 07:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment

I would probably reword the proposed addition as “Talk pages are not social media, chats, or instant messaging. Try to express your opinion in a single message, and only write if it adds to the conversations.” DiscussionTools does not make it easier to edit existing comments, as opposed to adding new ones.

The point 6 mentioned by violine1101 is “Do not delete topics or comments unless they are your own topic/comment and they have not been replied to. An exception is when archiving or if the topic violates one of the other rules.” What they propose to change is not a dedicated point, and if it was, it would’ve been point 7 or 8. I would prefer to explicitly define the purpose of user talk pages like on the Russian wiki, where it translates to English as:

User talk pages are used to discuss the actions of a specific user, to interact with them for achieving a specific task on the wiki, or for other messages related to the user or their activity. It should not be used for discussing personal matters.

Also, speaking of point 6 (about message removal), I would use the opportunity again to forbid users removing others' messages from their talk pages if those messages don't violate the rules; see Special:GoToComment/c-BabylonAS-20250308185700-Supeika-20250307191200.

— BabylonAS 08:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The mention of point 6 was mistakenly left from an earlier draft of this message and was not meant to be there. | violine1101 ^(talk) 19:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree some users who are extremely chatty and do not help the wiki should be stopped, like @1918Heerus87, who spammed random comments on every talk page. However, I feel that casual chatting should not be completely banned but just regulated. Users who contribute to the wiki should be able to have casual conversations every now and then, like what @GameCatastrophe said. Removing this removes a sense of community, and community is essential for a wiki to thrive and stay active. 👁 Image
72011copperfan2👁 Image
15:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of casual communication between editors being burdensome on admins and patrollers, hindering and halting progress on the Wiki? 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft Support The idea of making the rules a bit stricter but 👁 Image
 Oppose The idea of none user talk pages at all. they are frequently used and I know some people (Me included) don't have access to discord or other and the talk pages prove useful. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (Talk) 21:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's a full proposal of an updated "General" section, adapted further given the input from above:

Here's a quick overview of the changes:

• Reordered the points and split them up into multiple bullets
• Added a guideline about user talk pages (point 3).
• Added the point about not spamming messages as point 5.
• Users are no longer allowed to remove topics or comments by others on their own user talk page(s). They may still archive them or move them around, though.
• Clarified the language around removing rule-breaking comments on user pages a bit. Essentially, anyone can revert spam, but less clearly rule-breaking content should be removed by admins to avoid edit wars and similar.

| violine1101 ^(talk) 21:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC) (Last edited on 21:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC))

"Users are no longer allowed to remove topics or comments by others on their own user talk page(s)". Why? What problem does that solve? That feels completely random and unnecessary. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

For example: Why should a user be able to remove a warning by an admin or another user from their talk page? It's ok to archive but it should still be somewhere. | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

As explained in WP:Perennial proposals#Prohibit removal of warnings (a similar proposal on Wikipedia), user talk pages are not intended as a permanent record of a user's (mis)behavior, and all threads are always available in the page history if needed. 👁 Bepis
21:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Why did you copy someone else's comment that's also in this topic? That's entirely unnecessary (and would be disallowed under point 5 above) | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC) (Last edited on 21:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC))

Everyone's able to remove a warning by an admin. It's obvious that that's already not allowed. It's common sense. And that won't change if you just outright blanket-ban every possible reason anyone would have to remove topics on their page. There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons to remove topics and plenty of obviously invalid reasons to remove topics that anyone can revert at the push of a button. Just banning the whole thing makes everything worse for literally absolutely no gain. 👁 Image
 Strong oppose 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I 👁 Image
 Oppose the part about disallowing users to remove topics from their own user talk pages. As explained in WP:Perennial proposals#Prohibit removal of warnings (a similar proposal on Wikipedia), user talk pages are not intended as a permanent record of a user's (mis)behaviour, and all threads are always available in the page history if needed.

Also, "Administrators may remove any rule-breaking content from talk pages." -- why only administrators? Why shouldn't a non-administrator remove rule-breaking content? – Mitsos ^{[ talk ]} 21:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not really relevant for us, especially a discussion that's almost two decades old. On the contrary, I don't actually see any valid reason for why we would want to allow users to remove content from their talk pages. All cases where that'd happen seem malicious to me.

I already explained why I rewrote the rule that way: to avoid edit wars and similar. It just seems wrong to me that any user can just "censor" someone else just because they think it violates some obscure rule. Admins are trusted to judge whether rule breaking is taking place or not. Removing comments for obvious rule breaking (e.g. spam) is still allowed for anyone though! | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Considering user talk pages as a "permanent record of misbehavior" just because you can't remove warnings seems rather strange and written by someone who takes moderation actions very personally, which is not something to be encouraged. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
21:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I also 👁 Image
 Oppose the part about disallowing users to remove topics from their own user talk pages. 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Partial support because i agree with all rules except for the rule that disallows users to remove topics from their own user talk page. 👁 Bepis
21:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Partial Support Per Bepis19 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (Talk) 21:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support almost entirely. I think users should be able to remove topics from their user talk if they feel unnecessary or off topic enough. If some random IP gives me an award I think I should have the freedom to just get rid of that, but if someone makes a topic saying "hey about this edit you did it was wrong because blah blah" or something similar then I should not be able to just get rid of that because that's a serious topic that relates to content editing. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
21:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

As a frequent receiver of unnecessary topics, I 👁 Image
 agree with you on that. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
21:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good point. I'm just not sure how one would formulate a good guideline for that. Do you have any suggestions? | violine1101 ^(talk) 22:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Just let people remove topics from their own user talk pages. Trying to loop a guideline string around every possible nail that could ever possibly exist will never work, and besides, it's not like the rules are going to forever end all unconstructive actions. If someone decides to delete an important warning on their talk page, that's on them, and that can be dealt with personally in that scenario. Besides, they probably weren't planning on learning from their mistakes if that scenario arises. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Very strong support. I also support prohibiting to delete topics (except spam and topics violating the guidelines of course) on the main user talk page, I don't see any good reason why you would remove them. You can still find them in history anyways (it only makes it harder to find), and if you don't want a discussion to continue then close or archive it. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
22:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, this looks like a good draft. About the two main issues here:

• Removal of topics from a user's talk page should be left to common sense. Obvious breakings of rules like spam should be deleted, blah blah blah, but other cases can be left to common sense rather than rules specifically, although these new guidelines do cover all cases pretty well. About a guideline that could be implemented, it could be somethiung like "Use common sense when removing topics from your own talk page. Unexplained removal of topics that do not appear to be obvious spam, vandalism, or other guidelines may be reverted."
• I disagree that only administrators should be allowed to remove disruptive topics. Like I said, common sense, the baseline of any wiki, should be used. Besides, what comment breaks a rule, but not obviously? In the case of an edit war, well, that's also prevented by the wiki rules.

-~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  23:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I absentmindedly pressed ctrl-enter without realizing what I wanted to write next. Anyway:

Also, 👁 Image
 Question: how does this affect users that "set their own rules" for their talk pages, such as users that have messages at the top of their talk page? Some of this disallows or allows chatting, however I suppose this would be subject to these rules, correct?

Another question: should the talk page guidelines mention usage of the {{edited}} template?

Overall, I still support this rule change. This wiki should not be used as social media, even if users can't access it. people here just to chat or editfarm are not being constructive. These guidelines are a good solution to the problems we're facing now. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  23:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Users should still be able to set their own rules, but they cannot override the wiki-wide rules. This is already the case (or at least it should be).

I'm not sure about the edited template, I don't particularly mind, and it's not really a focus of this change. | violine1101 ^(talk) 14:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support. 👁 Image
Sightnado ^{t | c} 00:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support the changes except restrictions on removing things from your own talk page. Any warnings posted there by admins is already mentioned in the admin discord channel, and I see significant drawbacks from trolls abusing the system and creating edit wars. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 01:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone makes a big deal of removing messages from user talk pages. Those are a means of communication, not someone's property. If this would be allowed, a user could just remove all messages from someone they don't like and point to the rule allowing this removal in their own defense. If some topic is “unnecessary” but is not directly violating other guidelines, just ignore them. — BabylonAS 05:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

- Sometimes normal, non-rule breaking conversations can grow into annoying burdens that become frustrating to simply keep on the talk page and be notified by or expected to reply to.

- Some innocent, good-faith inquiries can be taken as incredibly uncomfortable, invasive, or disturbing to the recipient, even if it doesn't come off that way to anyone else. In this case, it's obvious that the user themself should have the final say, even if they're the only one who feels that way but about the message.

- Some users want to remove messages from indef-banned users to remove correlation between them. Those people don't want to be stuck permanently having some now-well-known vandal dozens of times on their talk page as that could invite spam or damage. There's a Wikipedia guideline that says this, but I don't know where it is. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Then just archive them... — BabylonAS 05:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That's just the same thing as deleting them except it's basically useless since they're still right there and you need to learn how to archive topics 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support --Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 00:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support everything except not being able to remove comments/topics from your own talk page. –LauraFi - talk 03:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure to understand how guideline 3.a ("Other talk pages in the user namespace may be used for discussions unrelated to Minecraft or the wiki") can coexist with guideline 5 ("Talk pages are not social media, chats, or instant messaging"). Does guideline 5 not apply to user namespace talk pages? If it does apply, how are users expected to discuss non-Minecraft or wiki topics without those discussions being considered chit-chat? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I feel like this tension exists only to adress the chit-chats that led to Forum:Clearly not being here to build/help while finding a way to allow CF to continue existing. IMO, stating something like "talk pages must aim to contribute to our goal of building an encyclopedia" if more concrete than "talk pages are not social media, chats, or instant messaging [but you can have] discussions unrelated to Minecraft or the wiki [under some conditions]" (I've nothing against CF, and I'm pretty sure that it allowed some users to become more even more constructive by various means, but it's hard to legitimize it while also trying to adress the out of topic chit-chats).

Besides that, I 👁 Image
 Support the proposal, including the guideline disallowing users to remove non-rule breaking content (although 8.c doesn't need to exist when 8.b does). - Zamburger (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I don't think there's a conflict between 3.a and 5. The point is that these user talk pages can be used to talk about things outside of the game and the wiki (e.g. real-life stuff), so rule 3.a unrestricts the topics of the talk page. Rule 5 is about the manner in which discussions are held, preventing "chit-chats" regardless of topic. So the two are about distinct issues. | violine1101 ^(talk) 14:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Just to be definitive, I 👁 Image
 Strong oppose guidelines 5 and adding user talk pages to guideline 8 per my previous messages and weak support everything else. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support this suggested change to the guidelines. I believe only point 3.a could be changed to add a link, like the CF, for this type of conversation. Having only one place for non-Wiki related discussion seems more advantageous than allowing multiple pages. In other respects, I don't think anything else needs to be changed. I also support point 8; messages on a user's discussion pages can be archived, not removed. Lastly, I believe that if these rules are implemented, some changes should be made to editnotices and a separate one should be added to the CF pages. - 👁 Image
Herobrine222376 | Talk 20:26, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose 👁 Image
72011copperfan2👁 Image
00:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Dianliang233 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

As with others, I 👁 Image
 oppose the restriction on removing others’ comments on their own talk pages. I won’t explain further; this entire thread has given enough reasons for that which I also agree with.

I 👁 Image
 support the rest. — 3A |  T  C  02:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 It should also be noted that point 3 seems poorly worded, implying that user talk pages can only be 1-to-1 conversations with the user whose talk page it is, and its subpoint awkwardly tries to tie a loophole around the CF and makes the entire guideline very confusing, stating that user pages which are also talk pages that are not the main user talk page can be used for things that go against guidelines... it doesn't really make sense. It should instead say something like this:

1. ...
2. ...
3. User talk pages may be used for discussions unrelated to Minecraft or the wiki, although all other rules and guidelines still apply.

This way, it still states that user talk pages don't have specific topic requirements, doesn't put random emphasis on the "main" user talk page, and doesn't have any weird, confusing wording to try and make a loophole, while still including the information that really matters. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable, thank you! | violine1101 ^(talk) 15:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest that subpages of the user talk page may only be used for discussing the corresponding user subpage, just like other talk pages. For other stuff there's the the main user talk page. — BabylonAS 07:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Following the feedback that users should still be allowed to remove topics/comments from their own talk page, I propose to change point 8 above as follows:

Besides that I'd keep it the same as above. | violine1101 ^(talk) 00:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC) (Last edited on 14:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC))

Given the apparent consensus of the discussion above and the lack of replies here, I'll soon ask an admin to close this discussion in favor of this phrasing unless someone opposes. | violine1101 ^(talk) 13:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: removed the point "Administrators may remove any rule-breaking content from talk pages." as it's superfluous. | violine1101 ^(talk) 14:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose — How does one define “unnecessary” or “off-topic”? BabylonAS 14:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Does that need to be defined? I'd say this is something where common sense applies. | violine1101 ^(talk) 14:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The wiki should not have loopholes for arbitrary removal of messages on someone's whim. BabylonAS 14:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative proposal for this? Note that disallowing removal of topics from user talk pages entirely was rejected above. | violine1101 ^(talk) 15:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed — only allow removing messages that violate other wiki rules. Moreover, I suggest restricting user talk pages to discussing wiki matters only. — BabylonAS 07:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Partial support but I 👁 Image
 agree to remove "unnecessary or off-topic" as that implies there's a guideline or definition on that which will likely just lead to arguments over semantics. On Wikipedia, per WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME, users should be able to remove topics from their talk page with a few obvious exceptions that are part of other wiki rules. If they remove user warnings, even though it's not preferable, it also proves that they read the warning and the warning is still in the page history anyways. Also WP:DRC says you shouldn't force people to keep topics on their talk page if they don't want to. I feel like these rules are reasonable and should be carried over, to some extent, onto this guideline. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Even the linked English Wikipedia page (to my knowledge language sections may have different policies on this) states that archiving is preferred to removal. Allowing removal will let users remove messages from their talk pages “just because”, no matter how justified and objective their motives are, which will not foster the spirit of constructive collaboration on the wiki. — BabylonAS 15:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, obviously archiving is preferred and I read the articles I link, but in what way will having the option in the first place "not foster the spirit of constructive collaboration on the wiki"? That is a completely seperate thing that wouldn't reasonably be affected. On the off-chance that the hypothetical situation of someone removing things "just because", WP:DRC says that we should allow them to do that and understand there's a reason for everything. And if that reason is just to be unconstructive or to troll, they aren't going to be around very long to keep doing that. And why would "justified and objective ... motives" damage the spirit of constructive collaboration? If the motive is justified and objective, then it's probably the message being removed that's damaging constructive collaboration. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)