Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Why do we allow to insert section anchors WITHIN other people's comments?

Why is this allowed?

§ Examples of appropriately editing others' comments

• IDs: Where sectioning is not appropriate, adding {{Anchor}} or {{Visible anchor}} for deep linking.

So a change like this is allowed?

This is a normal comment with a signature at the end. FaviFake (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

and someone changes it to:

This is a {{va|normal}} comment with {{va|a signature}} at the end. FaviFake (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do we need to allow people to add templates to other people's comments without permission? If this bullet point were removed, editors would still be able o interject anchors in-between comments, but allowing all comments to be edited like this without permission just seems eccessive. FaviFake (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Similarly, why are editors allowed to replace other's code "with a note" without needing permission? (§ oldcode) FaviFake (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I imagine that's to avoid clutter. Often with code, you need to give all the context and boilerplate and such even if you're effectively only changing one thing. E.g. say you want to de-duplicate a ref; then the edit request should explicitly show every spot where duplicate refs are being removed. And note that it's not "replacing" per se, just collapsing; the content is still on the page, just hidden. — W.andrea (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

And note that it's not "replacing" per se, just collapsing
It was until I edited it. It used to say "you can replace them with a note or collapse them" or something similar. FaviFake (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah yeah, here it is:

−

'''Hiding large code samples''' by replacing them with a note or [[Template:Collapse top|collapsing]] them

+

'''[[Template:Collapse top|Collapsing]] large code samples'''

— W.andrea (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! FaviFake (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I would not read the current text like that. Interjecting an anchor even between comments might appear to be part of someone else's edit, say if they add an anchor with their post. This sentence clarifies that such anchor adding should not be treated as part of the comment, and thus can be interjected later. CMD (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Why would anyone need (or want) to add such templates and codes to someone else’s comments? What is the purpose? Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Blueboar Let's say someone posts a very very long comment, and you want to draw attention to part of it (e.g. because you think it is an excellent idea and want to convince others to implement it) then it can be useful to add an anchor template that allows you to link to that specific part of the text.

But it is probably better to do that as a text fragment or as a quote. Polygnotus (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

In practice editors liberally interject visible anchors (ie. Section headers) in between the comments of others, sometimes even above a direct reply. It’s probably rare to add an invisible anchor, although theoretically that's less potentially disruptive to discussion flow. CMD (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Quote it… don’t mark up the original post. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

This happens extremely rarely so its not really worth discussing. Polygnotus (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

how can I edit it to become an anchor template? Laurunia2002 (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

you add an {{anchor}} somewhere in the comment. See examples in its doc FaviFake (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Interjecting an anchor even between comments might appear to be part of someone else's edit
I agree, but that's not what the guideline is about. It's about editing other people's comments. If this:

:Comment
:Someone elses comment.

becomes this:

:Comment
{{Anchor}}
:Someone elses comment.

, then no comments have been edited or moved. I don't think this needs to be specifically allowed, at least on that section. Or anywhere, really. it's just pointless instruction WP:CREEP. FaviFake (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree it is bad practice to add anchors and such stuff in the middle of someone else’s comments… but also agree that it is rare enough that it would be CREEP to say so in policy. We can revert and discourage it (via friendly comments) when we see it, but no need to explicitly spell out “Don’t do it”. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

That would introduce a WP:LISTGAP issue. For best compatibility you'd have to add it at the start of the comment, after the :, which some might think was editing their comment. Anomie⚔ 00:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Still, now that we have the ability to directly link to a comment, I think it's fair to disallow doing that without permission. Especially because I've never seen it actually happen in a real discussion. FaviFake (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Now that linking to talk page comments is possible, personally I feel there are very few scenarios where it would be reasonable to add anchor targets within someone else's comments. isaacl (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I just anchored this table so I could refer to it. I don't think that should be disallowed, and it would be so incredibly rare that it would make no sense to make rules about it. Polygnotus (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's sufficient to link to the section for that specific case. Note, though, only clerks or arbitrators should be editing other people's comments on an arbitration page. isaacl (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but it is an example, of something that could potentially be useful in very rare circumstances.

Some people have a tendency to write entire books in a single comment.

I also played around with User:Polygnotus/Scripts/Fragment.js to see how viable the Text Fragments thing is. Polygnotus (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Deon L. Butler

Hello reviewers — this draft is ready for review. Thank you for your time. Caramartin17 (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place for that. Masterhatch (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you know where I can add this? Caramartin17 (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The instructions are here: WP:DRAFTMOVE. Masterhatch (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Caramartin17 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Potential max size for talk pages

There is a discussion at ANI right now about how talk pages that are too large won't load correctly on mobile. ClueBotIII has a maxarchsize |maxkeepbytes= parameter that could cap an untended talk page at whatever that max limit is found to be on the mobile web version of the site. Should we consider adding something about that to this guideline? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rjjiii It may be a good idea to look at the various preceding discussions.

The problem isn't usually as simple as the size in bytes. A photo is much larger than a book of written text. A short video is often far bigger than a high resolution photo. Polygnotus (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: I see threads about removing a hard upper limit. What about a situation where a page is demonstrated to cause problems? Would archiving down to some certain byte limit not be likely to resolve the issue? What would be a better solution? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rjjiii It would take a while to explain the whole thing so please read and and and and .

Its one of those things where one would think it would be easy to form a strong opinion but reality is complex. The fix is a combination of reducing DiscussionTools overhead, not running a bunch of very resource intensive scripts, being nicer to people when you want them to archive their usertalkpage, reducing the amount of DOM elements, and not throwing 8mb of (mostly) junk at a 14 year old CPU. I can easily crash or slow down most browsers with a small amount of wikitext. Polygnotus (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want to do some testing check out . Polygnotus (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think Polygnotus makes some very good points, thanks. I also think it's not a good idea to change guidelines too quickly in response to what is, let's face it, a very heated and emotion-laden drama. The question of how best to solve technical problems that occur for some editors, but don't occur for others, should be based on a solid understanding of what the technical issues really are, and despite a lot of emotional comments about it, we really don't understand the technical reasons well enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, then consider the idea withdrawn for now. Hopefully things gets smoother for you and others involved. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Nice of you to say that, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

can't edit talk pages

When i press on publish it's just thinking and doesn't pass my edits through. what gives? ~2026-26982-48 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If you have any further information that would be helpful. You were able to post here, so it seems it's not a permanent bug. CMD (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge notices

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

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

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

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

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

Reply tool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok thanks. I can reproduce this when:

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

The HTML comment is displaced but has no visible effect.

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

Clarification about archived editing rules

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

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

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

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