I think you are absolutely correct in all aspects of your reasoning. In many cases, the /Talk pages should be refactored when the main page has been changed to the satisfaction of all the talkers. In some cases, this will not be true.

In some cases, deletions to the /Talk page should wait several days until all the contentious parties have had a good chance to mull it over. For example, there might be a 3-way debate. A and B are initially in agreement, and C dissents. B is convinced by C's dissent and changes the main page, noting on the /Talk page the reasons. It would be nice if A had a few days to decide whether to press the issue further, and simply deleting the talk page on the assumption that B's conversion is tantamount to consensus might be unwise.

One useful "middle of the road" solution is to *refactor* rather than *delete* the /Talk. That is, to rewrite the talk page to sum up the debate that was held, giving the rationale for the existing version of the page. This leaves things a bit more open to further debate, while at the same time "cleaning house" in a useful way.

I think that when we come across an old talk page that seems to be about an uncontroversially corrected error, we should feel free to just delete the whole discussion.

All in all, I think that no *simple* policy can be stated. As long as we have a friendly and helpful community striving for consensus, then individual judgment will serve to guide us quite nicely.

Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:

Hi,

I often stumble over /Talk pages containing requests for changes, clarification, or similar, which are outdated by the main page's progress. An example of many is URL:http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=LISP_programming_language/Talk&revision=1:

...

Page for discussion ...

Fluff, removed now.

...

"... and is therefore the oldest programming language ..."

with arguments why this is false. Notion has been corrected in the article. Following is a section acknowledging the error.

...

"... and CDR (Contents of Address Register) ..."

Pointing out a typo, which has been fixed. Another section acknowledging this error follows.

...

Function CAR in LISP program returns ...

I don't know what this is, perhaps a suggested addition to the article?

So, one section is still relevant, the other four or five were used by people to showcase problems that they were not sure enough about to go ahead and correct them. I'm unsure what should be done about these no-longer-relevant bits.

My preferred alternative is deleting them outright, and make the following guideline: If you implement a suggestion from a /Talk page, be sure to delete the suggestion as well. It is no longer relevant to the current revision of the article.

The counter argument that holds me back is that the discussion provides background reasoning to changes, especially regarding more contentious topics.

(Obviously this does not apply to the CAR/CDR change, so I decided to remove that as well, now.)

Thoughts?

-- Robbe