How to use a Wikipedia talk page

What is a Wikipedia talk page and where do you find it?

It is the discussion page attached to an article, opened from the Talk tab at the top of the article. The talk page guidelines define its purpose narrowly: "article talk pages should be used solely for discussing the improvement of that article." Its title is the article's title with Talk: in front, so the discussion page for an article called Example is Talk:Example.

Three practical points help first-time readers:

• A red Talk link means the page has not been started. Clicking it and adding a section creates it. The guidelines ask editors not to create an empty talk page just so one exists.
• On the mobile apps the link is somewhere else. Wikipedia's help page notes that in the Android app it normally appears under more options or at the bottom of the article as "View talk page".
• User talk pages are separate. Each editor has one, used for messages to that person. Problems with the article belong on the article's talk page; problems with one editor's behaviour start on theirs.

Behind the talk page is its own history tab, which lists every edit made to the discussion, by whom and when.

What do the banners at the top of a talk page tell you about your article?

They summarise how Wikipedia's editors have classified the article and what has happened to it. Talk pages usually open with a block of templates, which Wikipedia's layout guide calls the bannerspace, before any discussion starts. These are the ones that matter most to a subject:

The quality class

The class is a rough measure of how complete the article is, on a scale that runs from Stub and Start through C and B to Good Article, A and Featured Article. It is not a verdict on the subject. The assessment guideline says "Anyone can add a quality assessment below GA-class, regardless of WikiProjects", while Good and Featured status need an independent review. Priority ratings reflect only how central one WikiProject thinks the topic is to its own subject area. Start-class, for instance, describes an article that is "developing but still quite incomplete", which says more about the article than about its subject. The guideline also says disagreement over a rating should be discussed on the article's talk page.

A banner listing an earlier deletion discussion is worth opening first. The arguments made there, and the sources that were found or missed, show how editors have already judged the subject's coverage.

How do you read a talk page's archives?

Open the archive box near the top, or search it, before writing anything. On busy pages, threads that have had no comments for a set period are moved automatically by a bot to subpages, which are normally numbered: Talk:Example/Archive 1, Talk:Example/Archive 2 and so on. Some pages archive by hand and some never need to. The talk page guidelines recommend checking the archives first where a subject is controversial or popular, because a repeat of an old discussion wastes editors' time and can look like forum shopping.

When you read them, look for four things:

1. Whether your point has been decided. A closed discussion with a summary of the result is the nearest thing a talk page has to a ruling. Raising the point again needs something new, such as a source the earlier thread did not consider.
2. Which sources were judged. Editors often say in discussion that a particular outlet is weak or that a report was misread. That tells you what will and will not persuade them.
3. Who is active. The same few names in recent threads are the editors most likely to answer.
4. What has been said about connected editors. Earlier requests from the subject's side, accepted or declined, set the tone for the next one.

Two rules apply once you have found what you need. An archived thread that was closed should stay where it is: the guidelines say to start a new discussion and link to the old one. A thread archived before it reached any conclusion may be copied back to the talk page and removed from the archive. Clicking the timestamp on a comment copies a permanent link to it, and since June 2024 those links follow the comment into the archive.

How do you post on a Wikipedia talk page?

Use the Add topic link at the top of the talk page to open a new section, give it a heading, write the post and publish. New topics go at the bottom of the page, which the tool does for you. If an existing thread already covers your point, reply there instead of opening a duplicate.

The heading

The guidelines ask for headings that are clear, specific to the part of the article in question and neutral. "Date of appointment in the Career section" works. A heading that praises an edit, criticises a detail or names another editor does not. When you use the Add topic tool, the heading you type also becomes the edit summary that appears in the page history.

Signing

Every post ends with a signature. The Reply and Add topic tools add one automatically. If you edit the page source directly, type four tildes (~~~~) at the end, which converts to your username, a link to your talk page and a timestamp in Coordinated Universal Time. Without an account, a temporary identifier takes the place of the username. Leaving the signature off does not make the comment anonymous, because the page history records who saved it.

Replying and indenting

Since 2022 a Reply link has appeared after every signed comment on the desktop site, and it indents and signs for you. In source editing, indentation is done with colons: the opening post has none, a reply to it starts with one, a reply to that reply with two. The rule is to indent one level more than the comment you are answering. Use the same marker as the thread, because some discussions use asterisks, and do not leave blank lines between indented replies, which breaks the layout for screen reader users.

Small things that help

• Write in English. The guidelines say discussions on the English Wikipedia should normally be in English, and readers should not be expected to translate.
• If you cite sources in the post, add the Reflist-talk template underneath so the references display inside your thread.
• Use the [subscribe] link at the end of the section heading to be notified when someone replies.
• You may correct your own post for a short while after saving it, but only "so long as no one has yet responded to your comment." After a reply, mark any change visibly with strikethrough and inserted text rather than rewriting it.

What does a good talk page post look like?

It asks for one identifiable change, gives the source for it and fits on a phone screen. The guidelines put the length point bluntly: "Long posts risk being ignored or misunderstood." Several separate changes are better as separate subsections, each with its own reasons and sources, because a single long post tangles the replies.

Tone matters as much as content. The guidelines ask editors to explain the reasons behind a view, to keep to how sources should be reflected in the article, and to "Deal with facts". Asking for a reliable source for a statement is often more productive than arguing against it. Excess capitals, bold and exclamation marks read as shouting.

Write the post yourself. The talk page guidelines now say comments "that are obviously generated by a large language model or similar AI technology are not permitted in discussions" and can be struck or collapsed, with limited exceptions for simple corrections and translation.

What should you avoid on a talk page?

Most of the mistakes that hurt a subject's case are listed in the guidelines as unacceptable behaviour, and repeated breaches can lead to a block.

• Changing or removing other people's comments. The basic rule is not to edit or remove others' posts without permission, and never to change their meaning. There are narrow exceptions, such as removing libel, personal details or material that breaks the biographies policy, but disliking a comment is not one of them.
• Personal attacks. The policy's summary is "Comment on content, not the contributors." Dismissing a view because of who holds it counts as an attack. Asking an editor about a possible conflict of interest does not, but speculating about their real-life identity may be treated as outing, and posting another editor's personal details can lead to a block of any length.
• Legal threats. A threat of court action against editors or Wikipedia usually leads to a block while it stands, and wording such as calling an editor's statement "defamatory" can be read as one. Our guide to contacting Wikipedia about a page explains how to report a genuine legal problem without making a threat.
• Canvassing. Telling others about a discussion is allowed if you "keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." Emailing or messaging people to persuade them to join a discussion is what the guideline calls stealth canvassing, and it treats that as inappropriate.
• Using the page as a forum. Talk pages are for the article, not for views on the person or company, and comments clearly about the subject itself rather than its coverage are commonly deleted.
• Repeating yourself. Restating the same argument after others have answered it may be treated as bludgeoning, and the guidelines say discussions should end by agreement, "not by exhaustion."
• Raising the same point in several places. Duplicate threads on different pages fragment the discussion and may be read as forum shopping. Start it once and link to it elsewhere if needed.

What does the conflict of interest guideline ask of connected people on talk pages?

To be open about the connection, to propose rather than make changes, and to keep it brief. For someone with a personal link to an article's subject, the guideline asks them to "provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." Among its list of expectations for editors with a conflict of interest is that they "respect other editors by keeping discussions concise."

In practice the talk page is where a connected person does almost all their work on an article:

• A specific change is requested in its own section with the template for conflict of interest edit requests, which places it in a queue for uninvolved reviewers. Our guide to Wikipedia edit requests covers the template, the wording reviewers accept and the waiting times.
• Sources can be offered for others to use. The guideline counts adding independent reliable sources that another editor has asked for as an uncontroversial edit, "although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add."
• If anyone objects to a change, it is no longer uncontroversial and belongs in discussion, whatever its merits.

The guideline also reminds subjects that no one controls the article about them. A talk page request is a proposal to volunteers, who may decline it. Which edits a connected person may still make directly is set out in can I edit my own Wikipedia page.

What can you do if nobody replies on the talk page?

Check who is actually watching, then bring in editors from outside the article in a neutral way. A reply depends on someone noticing the post. The dispute resolution policy notes that other editors may see a talk page conversation if the article is on their watchlists, and an article few people watch can leave a post unread.

1. Look at the history. If the article and its talk page have had no edits for a long time, a post may simply not have been seen. If they are active, the silence may mean the post was unclear.
2. Notify editors who know the article. The canvassing guideline allows a neutral note to editors who have made substantial edits to it or joined earlier discussions, provided they are not chosen for their opinions. Linking an editor's username in a signed post sends them a notification and counts the same way.
3. Ask a WikiProject. The projects listed in the banners each have a talk page. A short note there with a link back to your thread draws in editors interested in the subject area.
4. Use the edit request queue. A formal request is listed for reviewers whether or not anyone watches the article. For edit requests, Wikipedia suggests waiting at least two weeks before reapplying or asking for help.
5. Ask at the conflict of interest noticeboard. The guideline names it, alongside a related WikiProject, for articles with few uninvolved editors.

Do not repost the same request every few days, and do not treat silence as permission to edit the article. If a bot archives the thread before anyone answers, copy it back to the talk page.

Where does a talk page dispute go next?

To one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution venues, and almost all of them require the talk page discussion to have happened first. The dispute resolution policy says anyone using them will be expected to show it, and that "discussion conducted entirely through edit summaries is inadequate."

The usual next steps are a third opinion where only two editors disagree, a request for comment on the article's talk page for a wider question, the dispute resolution noticeboard, and specialist noticeboards such as the one for biographies of living persons. Each has its own entry conditions, and they are compared in our guide to what to do when someone keeps editing your Wikipedia page. If the disagreement has already turned into repeated reverting, read edit wars and the three-revert rule before doing anything else.

Two other points come from the guidelines. A complaint about one editor's behaviour should be raised with that editor on their user talk page, not argued out on the article's talk page. And as a rule of thumb, a discussion is kept open for at least a week before it is closed. Where the outcome is unclear or contentious, a participant can ask for an uninvolved editor to close it at Wikipedia:Closure requests, with a neutrally worded request.

Why does a first talk page post carry so much weight?

Because it stays on Wikipedia and is reread every time the article comes up for discussion. When a comment is removed or a thread archived, it leaves the current page but not the history: each saved version of the talk page remains readable, with the account that made it, unless an administrator hides it. The archiving instructions say archives "should not be edited to change the substantive meaning of discussions or disrupt their context", and should only be altered to remove material that breaches specific policies, such as libel or serious personal attacks. The guidelines also point out that edit summaries and edit histories "are not normally subject to revision", which is why a heading that attacks an editor is treated as especially serious.

Put together with the advice to search the archives before posting, this means a subject's first post is likely to be read by the editors who handle their next request, possibly years later. A calm, sourced request followed by a gracious reply to a decline makes the next request easier. An angry thread, a deleted comment restored by someone else, or an undisclosed connection pointed out by another editor does the opposite, and none of it can be withdrawn.

For a single factual correction with a good source, posting yourself is entirely reasonable, and the example above is the model. It becomes harder when the archives already hold a dispute, when the article is a contentious topic, or when the change involves removing or reframing negative material. Our dispute support service starts by reading the talk page and its archives, then prepares requests and arguments that answer what editors have already said. We cannot promise any outcome on Wikipedia. A free page health check gives a written account of what the talk page, its banners and its history show about your article.