WikiIndex talk:Frequently asked questions

I am excited and interested in us using this to build our users guide and helping new people to the project. MarkDilley

Also, I was thinking that Help:FrequentlyAskedQuestions might be better, after seeing it in the MediaWikiMeta wiki. MarkDilley

Fine with me. We ought to add the Help namespace to the Namespace conventions page. TedErnst | talk 15:38, 24 Jan 2006 (EST)

Discussion board?
With reference to this revert, is the intent that this be an anything-goes discussion board, that includes questions from years ago that only a few people cared about even back then; or are we going to strive to make the name of the page "FrequentlyAskedQuestions" actually be an accurate description of what the page contains? A FAQ is normally supposed to express the consensus of the site rather than the opinions of particular users responding to questions as they see fit, since people typically go to FAQs in search of authoritative answers. The idea is that since the questions are frequently asked, we make an extra effort to make sure that the answers are correct, since it's information that a lot of people are looking for. Also, the excess clutter should be removed to make it easier for people to find the info they're looking for. Leucosticte (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would say that was the original intent. It doesn't mean we can't change it. My revert doesn't even mean that I like it as is. But I believe that the questions and signatures were left in because this wiki chooses to have a style more similar to the original wiki, where it is OK to have commentary, even on talk pages and FAQs. Also, removing my name and timestamp from my answers to questions makes them look set in stone as "official" policy when that is not the case. So, I reverted your change. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because they're on the page without attribution doesn't mean they're set in stone, although it does make it seem as though they're official pronouncements of the community. They're only official until someone removes them, though (and starts the BRD cycle). If they're left there with attribution, then ironically they're even harder to remove from the page because that would be tampering with someone's signed comment. (Which is what I did, but only because we already have this talk page for those types of discussions; so why do we need a talk page for a talk page. On the other hand, English Wikipedia sometimes has debates, e.g. deletion debates, on Project namespace pages, and then a Project talk page.)


 * Through some recent boundary-testing, it looks like we'll start to see more clarity on where the community stands with respect to some issues that have been left hazy. Leucosticte (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)